This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
------------------------------x : BRETT KIMBERLIN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : AARON WALKER, : : Defendant. : : ------------------------------x
Civil No. 8444D
April 11, 2012
DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. 12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210 Germantown, MD 20874 (301) 881-3344
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
BRETT KIMBERLIN, Plaintiff,
Civil No. 8444D
AARON WALKER, Defendant.
Rockville, Maryland April 11, 2012
WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled matter commenced BEFORE: THE HONORABLE ERIC M. JOHNSON, JUDGE
APPEARANCES: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: BRETT KIMBERLIN, Pro Se Bethesda, Maryland 20817
FOR THE DEFENDANT: REGINALD W. BOURS, III, Esq. Reginald W. Bours, III, P.C. 401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 103 Rockville, Maryland 20850-2617
DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.
I N D E X Page Opening Statements: Brett Kimberlin Plaintiff Pro Se Reginald W. Bours, III, Esq. For the Defendant WITNESSES For the Plaintiff: Bruce Sherman Brett Kimberlin For the Defendant: (None) EXHIBITS For the Plaintiff: Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit No. No. No. No. 1 2 4 5 20 -50 50 20 49 --MARKED RECEIVED 13 35 22 57 -83 --DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT 5
For the Defendant: Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit No. No. No. No. No. No. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29 31 -72 ---30 31 33 76 77 79 79
cc 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 Walker. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Good morning, Your Honor. THE CLERK: P R O C E E D I N G S Case 8444, Brett Kimberlin versus Aaron
State your name, please. Brett Kimberlin.
MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: MR. BOURS:
All right. For the record, Your Honor, Reginald W.
Bours, sir, on behalf of the respondent in the original proceeding and the appellant in this Court. Walker. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. His name is Aaron
Any preliminary issues? MR. KIMBERLIN: MR. BOURS: No, sir.
I thought I would, perhaps, give the
Court a little background on the case to speed us along. I do want to ask for a rule on witnesses, although I have no objection to Lieutenant Colonel Sherman being in the courtroom during this statement. lady that’s in here is a witness. I don’t know if the young The gentleman on the far
left of the courtroom is not a witness. THE COURT: Are you a witness, ma’am? No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: THE COURT: MR. BOURS: Okay.
I just wouldn’t want any potential
cc 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 Bours.
5 witnesses, if Mr. Kimberlin wants to call anyone, to be sitting in here while I’m making statements. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kimberlin, do you wish to
make an opening statement? MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Go ahead. OPENING STATEMENT BY BRETT KIMBERLIN, PLAINTIFF This case arises out of a peace order from the District Court. The District Court found, by clear and Yes, sir.
I’ll hear you and then I’ll hear from Mr.
convincing evidence, that Mr. Walker has been harassing and that he assaulted me in this courthouse on January 9th, 2012. Mr. Walker has been engaged in a campaign of bullying towards me online and this resulted in him showing up in a court case that I was involved with, getting admonished by Judge Rupp to remain quiet in the court case, and following me outside the courtroom where he continued to berate me and came at me in an aggressive manner which resulted in me taking a photograph of him as he was coming to hit me. me at that time. The courtroom staff came out of the courtroom, from Judge Rupp’s court, called the sheriff. Nine deputies showed He did assault
up and they advised me that they could not arrest Mr. Walker because they didn’t see the assault, advised me to go to the commissioner’s office and press charges, which I did, and I got
cc 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 a peace order at that time also. Subsequently, the State’s
Attorney’s office chose to nolle prosse the case, but the peace order has remained in effect. Since then, since that January 9th attack, Mr. Walker has retaliated against me in a number of ways, by filing a false criminal charge against me which didn’t even get past the screeners at the State’s Attorney’s office. He filed a false
peace order against an associate, sending the police out to my house to serve him when he has never even visited my house. He’s filed a $66,000,000 lawsuit against me, a frivolous and malicious lawsuit against me in Virginia. Twitter campaign against me. He has engaged in a
I don’t tweet, but he has tweeted He has posted on his own
scores of posts about me on Twitter.
blog that I’m “human filth” and asked people not to donate to my nonprofits and if they do, that he will consider charging them with criminal and civil penalties. I’m the director of a nonprofit. over 10 years here in Maryland. I have been for
I work with young people,
Congress members, congressional offices, government offices, and community leaders to get young people out to vote and engage in the world. I was arrested 34 years ago on a crime. charged with a bombing case. to possess marijuana case. I was
I was charged with a conspiracy When I was a teenager, I was
charged and convicted for perjury forty years ago.
cc 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 down. Mr. Walker seems to think that I cannot live that
He has used his blog over and over for months and months
to call me a terrorist and a perjurer, and asked people to harass me. I’ve gotten death threats because of his actions.
I’ve been called terrible names and it’s a continuing process of harassment, and he has attempted to destroy and besmirch my reputation. I’m a father. I’m a husband and I’m a community
leader here in the area, and Mr. Walker wants to destroy that because I, in my nonprofit, have helped Muslims -- Muslims, moderate Muslims. I work with Muslim artists and activists. nonprofit is called Justice Through Music. My
Music is a 501(c)(3) here in Maryland and as part of our work, we work with Muslim activists here and abroad to provide reconciliation between Muslims and Christians, and to oppose oppression and anarchy in dictatorial countries overseas. The
State Department sends young Muslim activists to train with my organization every year. Mr. Walker does not like my work with Muslims. runs -- he’s a publisher of a blog called Everyone Draw Mohammed. Everyone Draw Mohammed asks people to draw insulting He has over 800 depictions He
depictions of the prophet Mohammed. of the prophet Mohammed on his blog.
He calls -- he tells people on his blog to -- he
cc 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 Muslims.
8 tells “Muslim bitches,” quote, to come to his blog and if they don’t like what he says about insulting them, to come to his home in Manassas, Virginia, where he’ll engage in a gun battle with them. So Mr. Walker does not like the fact that I support He tells people on his blog that the only way he’ll
post a depiction on his blog is if considers it fatwa worthy, a fatwa being an edict by a Muslim cleric that -- an edict condemning the work or actions of a certain party. So this has gotten into quite a contentious situation and I’ve been harassed. I’ve asked to be left alone. Mr.
Walker harassed me through a pseudonym called Aaron Worthing. Aaron Worthing was -THE COURT: Excuse me. Yeah.
MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT:
I asked for an opening statement, which
is, as you may know, a preview of what the case is about and I think I’ve got it. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: You’ve got it. Okay.
Let me hear from Mr. Bours. All right.
OPENING STATEMENT BY REGINALD W. BOURS, III, ESQ. ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Your Honor, from my perspective, what we’re really here to determine is whether the elements under the peace order
cc 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 attorney. things. statutes are met by anything that is actually proven in this Court.
I think a really good place to start is Mr. Kimberlin is absolutely incorrect when he says that a District Court judge found that, by clear and convincing evidence, that there had been an assault. You have the file there and I’ll simply
conveniently hand up the final peace order signed by Judge Everngam in District Court. He found, by clear and convincing evidence, two He found that there had been harassment and that it
was likely to continue. We’re here de novo so I’m not going to say that Mr. Kimberlin can’t bring up anything at all. that up to the Court to decide. I’m going to leave
But what is absolutely wrong
with the District Court’s finding is that harassment is defined under the criminal laws of the State, and I’ll argue this later. I have the statutes here with me. You’ll find that
nothing that Mr. Kimberlin actually testifies about, even if you accept his testimony, constitutes harassment under the criminal statute and if it doesn’t, then a judge can’t order a peace order based on that. So that’s just the starting point.
Let me tell you that my client is a practicing He’s admitted to the bar in the District of Columbia He has a hobby involving
and in the State of Virginia. blogging.
He has a blogging site, as it were, called “Allergic
cc 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 to Bull.”
10 It’s a political type of site and it basically talks I think,
about politics, all kinds of different issues.
indirectly, that’s how he came to Mr. Kimberlin’s attention. What is really in the background of this case is Mr. Kimberlin was convicted of a number of things that he hasn’t told you about. He was convicted as an adult of perjury before He was given a 50 year sentence for
the grand jury in Indiana.
bombing, and one of the aspects of that bombing is that an individual who had his leg blown off committed suicide, and his widow sued, and collected, not collected but got, a $1 million judgment against Mr. Kimberlin, which he later refused to pay and a federal court found him in violation of his parole and revoked his parole for not paying the civil judgment that was part of his parole conditions. as recently as 1999. Be that as it may, what happened in the background of this case is that this gentleman, Mr. Kimberlin, sued somebody named Seth Allen in this court. I have the files here, but The case is Civil He Some of these things happened
there was a court proceeding on January 9th. No. 339254V.
Mr. Kimberlin sued somebody named Seth Allen.
got a judgment for $100 from Judge Jordan for defamation, the defamation involving some of these same matters about his background, supposedly. Judge Jordan also ordered and cited an
injunction saying that Seth Allen should not do anything harmful to Mr. Kimberlin’s business.
cc 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 As near as I can place it, the only connection my client has to any of this is that he heard about the action
against Seth Allen and told Seth Allen he should get a lawyer, because Seth Allen defaulted in the case I just mentioned. So
everything that happened between Kimberlin and Seth Allen was on a default judgment basis. After Judge Jordan on November 14 issued an injunction and awarded $100 in damages to Mr. Kimberlin, Mr. Kimberlin claimed that Seth Allen was continuing in his defamatory or business interference activities. Because the
name Aaron Worthing had come up in the proceedings, he issued subpoenas to Google, among others, to reveal the identity of Aaron Worthing, the blog that I was telling you about. My client got involved in that litigation peripherally, but only after he sent -- he, meaning Mr. Kimberlin -- sent him an e-mail in which he brought out all of his personal data in a motion that he had filed to withdraw the request for subpoenas to Google. This makes no sense to most people, I think, maybe not to the Court, but what’s going on here is that Mr. Kimberlin was actually engaging in a campaign against Mr. Walker, not the other way around. In fact, the only thing that
had happened prior to January 9th involving a blog or anything was on December 11th of 2011. had done at all. That’s the only thing my client
cc 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
12 So, at any rate, my client comes to the courthouse on January 9th because there’s a motion in front of Judge Rupp across the hall, and he stood up in front of Judge Rupp, and pointed out that this man had put his identity out in a pleading that’s filed in the court, and he asked that it be sealed, which he did; that is, Judge Rupp did agree to seal the document this man put out. This man was doing it because he
actually was attempting to cause harm to my client. What he’s told you about this Muslim Web site and everything else, there’s maybe a grain of truth to it, but what you’ll find in the end, if you ever get to it, is that I think that Mr. Kimberlin was hoping that somebody would come to my client’s home because of the litigation in which he was identified and actually cause him harm. That’s a process of
intimidation that is typical with Mr. Kimberlin as we may show during the evidence. At any rate, my client and Mr. Kimberlin were pro se in the proceedings below. My client is not a Maryland lawyer.
The matter of the statutes on harassment wasn’t even argued in the proceedings below. it. We have a transcript if you need to see
In fact, under the Maryland law, number one, my client has
not committed harassment within the meaning of that statute. That statute requires a course of conduct that just isn’t going to be shown by the evidence. Secondly, they have no connection to each other at
cc 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 Q busted. this point in time, other than maybe this lawsuit that was filed against Mr. Kimberlin in Virginia. But this is not an
appropriate proceeding in which to order a peace order against Mr. Walker and I think you’ll find at the end of the case that the petitioner should not be believed, that the evidence is not clear and convincing of either an assault or harassment. THE COURT: Thank you.
Are you your first witness, sir? MR. KIMBERLIN: I can -- because the sheriff is here,
I would be happy to call him so he can -THE COURT: order you want to. MR. KIMBERLIN: think is your name. THE COURT: I don’t think he appreciates being Yeah. I’ll call Sergeant Sherman, I That’s fine. You call witnesses in the
It’s Colonel Sherman. MR. KIMBERLIN: Oh. Colonel. Sorry.
BRUCE SHERMAN called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: THE COURT: You may inquire, sir. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KIMBERLIN Hi. Colonel Sherman, you’re familiar with an
incident that occurred on this floor on January 9, 2012?
cc 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. Q THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I’m familiar with an
incident report No. 12 -- I’m sorry, an incident report dated January 9, 2012, that was filed by deputies in the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office. THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. KIMBERLIN: Can you tell us what that incident report says? MR. BOURS: THE COURT: Object. I sustain that objection.
Let me just say this for the record, sir. I know this matter was down in District Court and in the District Court, by rule and practice, the Court is permitted to relax the rules of evidence, the reason being that most people who come to District Court, particularly with small claims, do not have lawyers. Often times the claims in
District Court, the amount of the claim, certainly the legal fees, would exceed what the amount of the lawsuit is. So most
of the people or many of the people who appear in District Court are not represented, and so the Court relaxes the rules and allows citizens to sort of present their case. Here in the Circuit Court, we are not permitted to do The rules of evidence and the rules of procedure apply
whether the person is a lawyer or whether they are not a lawyer. We have one set of rules. So, the objection that counsel has made is to the
cc 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 Q A reading of a report which includes hearsay information that
doesn’t fall within any -- well, I haven’t read it, so I don’t know, but presumably, it doesn’t fall within any exception to the hearsay rule and would not be admittable here in Circuit Court. At any rate, police reports and the sheriff’s
department is a law enforcement agency, police department. Those reports are not admissible. MR. KIMBERLIN: So you’re saying the police report is
not admissible because the person that wrote it is not here? Is that what you’re saying? THE COURT: I’m saying that it is hearsay. It
doesn’t fit within any exception to the hearsay rule and they are routinely not admitted in the Circuit Court. Now anything that the sheriff saw, anything that he witnessed, he can certainly testify about that. MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.
BY MR. KIMBERLIN: Were you there at the incident? No, sir. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: MR. BOURS: Then I have no further questions.
Any questions? I did not subpoena Colonel Sherman, but I
have some things I’d like to introduce through him at the appropriate time. THE COURT: Well, I know --
cc 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 Q ahead. BY MR. KIMBERLIN: Are you -- is a part of your job description to be MR. BOURS:
16 So I would ask that the Court allow him
to remain or ask him to remain until it’s our turn to present evidence. THE COURT: I know how busy they are, so what I will
allow you to do is clear the hurdles of evidentiary rules and I won’t rule on the admittance or not of those things, and he doesn’t need to stay. Are you following me, sir? MR. KIMBERLIN: question then? THE COURT: Sure. But I’m going to let Mr. Bours So Well, could I just ask him another
mark and identify whatever it is needs to come through him. the issue of whether it comes in or not won’t be whether it comes in through him. He’ll be gone. The issue will be
whether whatever it is is admissible otherwise. But if you have other questions, you may ask. Go
the keeper of the video tapes of the courtroom incidents? A The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office does keep some In the current technology, they are not
tapes but they’re hard drives. Q A Okay. But the Sheriff’s office does maintain some video
cc 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 Q data that includes video activity in the courthouse. Q
Are you familiar with a video that was taken of the
incident of January 9th? A I’m not personally familiar with it. I’m aware that
there was some video coverage of an incident in the courthouse on January 9th and that that DVD of that video was provided to both the State’s Attorney, for discovery purposes, and you for discovery purposes. MR. KIMBERLIN: that video? THE COURT: If you can have it properly identified. I mean is there going to be an Your Honor, am I allowed to show you
MR. KIMBERLIN: objection to the video? THE COURT:
A party doesn’t worry about what the You call your own plays. You don’t try the case to If
other side is going to object to. they object, that’s what they do. them.
You try it to this Court and if I find that the evidence
is admissible, it will be admissible over objection, if that’s the appropriate thing to do. BY MR. KIMBERLIN: If I show you a video, can you tell the Court whether
that is the video of that event? A I can tell you that the Sheriff’s office maintains
videos and that as a result of request from the parties, those videos were copied onto DVDs and provided either in criminal
cc 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 view it. THE COURT: We have to have it. But it has to be a part of the record. It can’t -So you can’t -computer. THE COURT: You don’t have a disc? I don’t have a disc. discovery or pursuant to an information request to yourself. I was not there for the incident. incident occur.
I didn’t see the
I would only be able to say that whatever is
on the DVD system is a recording of what our DVD and -- or our recording system and video cameras –- observe in the courthouse, but I don’t have any personal knowledge of what happened on that date or any time between you and any other individual. MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. Your Honor, I do want to I can do it now or I can
introduce this video at some point. do it as we go. MR. BOURS: THE COURT:
I’m going to object again. Have the item marked. I mean it’s on a video. It’s on a
MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: take your computer? MR. KIMBERLIN:
How would I receive it into evidence,
Well, I mean you can see it.
MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT:
You don’t have a disc of it?
cc 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 Q time. record. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: No.
Then it won’t be able to be a part of the
In other words, the exhibit will have to be marked by
the clerk, shown to the witness, have the witness identify it, then the Court would receive it into evidence. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Okay.
I understood that there was a disc made
and given to both sides? MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes. There was a disc made. I I
didn’t bring the disc because I’ve had it on my computer.
downloaded it on my computer because I didn’t think you would be able -- it’s in a very strange format and we -THE COURT: Well, we deal with those formats all the
As you see, we have a machine here for showing the disc. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Can I -- I’d like to --
If you have photographs, that’s -I do.
MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT:
You can have them marked by the clerk and
see if the sheriff can identify them. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: May I approach?
BY MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m going to hand you three photographs and -THE COURT: Let Mr. Bours see them. Okay.
cc 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, too. THE COURT: MR. BOURS: THE COURT: Anything else? No. Overruled. Okay. (The photographs were marked for I’ll receive the pictures. Q BY MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m going to hand you three photographs here.
could just look at those and state to the Court whether those appear to be from the video in question. A They appear to be printouts from the Sheriff’s office
video system showing scenes on the ninth floor lobby of the judicial center. 2012. The camera frame identifies it as January 9,
They appear to be from the Vicon system that the
Sheriff’s office uses for video cameras in the courthouse. MR. KIMBERLIN: Thank you.
Your Honor, would you like to see these? THE COURT: MR. BOURS: Any objection as to these? The objection I really have is they don’t They are picked by him for I think we need to have
show a complete sequence of events.
whatever he intends to show with them. the complete record. MR. KIMBERLIN:
I have the video here and I can show
identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 and were received in evidence.)
cc 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 Q A MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT:
21 May I describe what they are or not? The witness is
Well, I’ll look at them.
on the stand if you want to ask him questions about them. BY MR. KIMBERLIN: Can you identify anything in these pictures at all? Mr. Kimberlin, there are three pictures. There’s one
taken at 11:42:34 a.m., according to the marking on the picture, one taken at 11:43 a.m., and one taken at 11:45:02 a.m. The first one appears to be a picture of the ninth floor lobby taken from the camera in the lobby. There appear
to be three individuals in the picture, too, on the left side, one on the right side, and some briefcases, two briefcases on the floor. I can’t identify who the people are. I don’t --
have no idea who they are. Q A 11:43 a.m. Okay. The second picture was, is marked as being, taken at I think there are one, two, three, four, five I can’t identify who they are.
people in the photograph.
And in the last picture taken at 11:45:02 a.m. on January 9, 2012, there appear to be a whole lot of people in there, probably 10 people, of which three appear to be Montgomery County deputy sheriffs, people wearing the tan Montgomery County deputy sheriff uniform that I’m wearing; one or two people in a dark blue uniform, which appear to be
cc 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 Q A Q BY MR. BOURS: Do you know a deputy named Jim Johnson? Yes. Is he in any of these photographs, if you want to sheriffs or law enforcement officers, and then four to six civilians. I can guess at who the people are, but I can’t
identify their faces. MR. KIMBERLIN: questions for the Colonel. THE COURT: MR. BOURS: Any questions? May I have the photographs? CROSS-EXAMINATION All right. I have no further
look again? A He’s not in the first two. The one taken at 11:45:02
a.m., may be a picture of him. across the lobby.
It’s taken from quite a ways
It’s what I would say is a rear profile It’s kind of back
picture, so you know, it’s hard to tell. lit, but it could be Jimmy Johnson. Q
Is he the author of the report that was mentioned
earlier in your testimony? A Q office? A Q Yes. Was the video that we’ve been talking about, the full Yes. Was his report submitted to the State’s Attorney’s
cc 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
23 video, not just individual photographs, was that also submitted to the State’s Attorney’s office? A Yes. To my knowledge, the DVD video, the incident
report from the Sheriff’s office, and perhaps printed out frames of pictures may have been submitted for discovery in a criminal case. Q A Q Do you supervise Deputy Johnson? Not directly, but I’m in the supervisory chain. From your knowledge, did he testify in the District
Court peace order proceedings? A In fact, I was summoned as a witness in the District Both
Court peace order proceeding, I think by Mr. Walker.
Deputy Johnson and myself were there, and Deputy Johnson did, in fact, testify in the District Court peace order proceeding. Q A But you did not in that proceeding? I think I was called to the stand and I identified
the report. Q A witnesses. Was the DVD shown in District Court? I have no idea. We were there. We were called as So it was not shown
After we testified, we left.
by myself or Deputy Johnson.
Whether it was shown after we
left, I have no way of knowing. Q A Deputy Johnson, where is he this week? He’s, I think, on the eastern shore of Maryland at a
cc 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 Q then? MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: I have no objection. Q A Q So he’s not available to testify today? No, sir. Were you in the courtroom when he testified in
District Court? A Yes, sir. MR. BOURS: Judge, I’ll just proffer so that we don’t I do have a disc and I can have
have to fence around about it. it marked.
It’s currently in the only computer I could get it But
to work on and I’m reluctant to take it out and ruin that. I’d like to show this to the Colonel and see if he can agree that this is the full video. THE COURT: MR. BOURS: it in again? MR. WALKER: MR. BOURS: I think we got half an hour. Okay. You want to pull out the plug And to Mr. Kimberlin.
How long will this last if we don’t plug
But you might want to take a look
at what it is he’s showing. MR. KIMBERLIN: BY MR. BOURS: Tell me about the system that these photographs are I assume it’s the same thing. Yeah.
taken with or these videos are taken with. A There’s a Vicon system that has a number of hard
cc 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 drives, maybe two or three hard drives.
25 I’m not exactly sure
about the electronics, but there is a rack in the Sheriff’s office on the T8 level in the courthouse that records video feeds from cameras that are installed in the courtrooms, installed in the hallways in the courthouse, pursuant to a security study done by the National Center for State Courts some years ago. They typically -- some of them are fixed cameras. Some of them are directable cameras and they record what I would call multiplexed video. In other words, it’s not a There are maybe 16 cameras
continuous stream of photographs.
being recorded on one hard disc and it will switch from each of those 16 cameras, as I understand it, take a fraction of a second, switch to the next camera, and then it gets multiplexed. Then there’s a software kind of set up that
allows it to separate those pictures out again. Q A Okay. So it will take a picture but it will be every There may be some gaps in it.
sixteenth of a second. Q A
So it’s every sixteenth of a second that it -I don’t know the exact fraction of a second. I know
that the multiplexing will go through a number of different cameras and then when you view it, it reassembles those. But
it won’t be like a high definition movie that you would watch on your cable tv where it’s continuous.
cc 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 from? A This appears to be a camera in the ceiling of the There’s a wire or a Q
26 The thing that is recording it is on a, I’ll call it,
a pole or some kind of extension that comes down from the ceiling and has multiple views around the ninth floor, is that right? A The -- there are cameras installed in various
locations in the courtroom, courthouse, in the lobby. Q Can you tell from this video though where this one is
lobby on ninth floor of the courthouse.
conduit, whether it’s optical cable or electrical cable, that then runs back down from that camera to the basement in the courthouse to a essentially a computer hard drive. the information gets recorded on that hard drive. Q You know for a fact that the disk that is playing It gets --
this was recorded for a period of time beginning at roughly 11:40 a.m. on January 9th? A I -- other than looking at the data that’s displayed
on the picture itself, I wouldn’t know what the time frame, date of it is or the time frame. It’s self authenticating in
the sense that the frames have a date indication that I would presume is correct. Q Just so you don’t have to come back, I’m going to
start this real quick because it doesn’t take very long, and ask if it appears to be genuine to you.
cc 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 Q
27 (Whereupon, the video tape referred to was played.) THE WITNESS: Without going frame by frame through
each picture frame in there, I would characterize it as apparently a stop motion picture of the lobby that’s outside this courtroom. BY MR. BOURS: This would be the disk that was submitted to the
State’s Attorney’s office for discovery purposes, correct? A Again, without seeing the disk, I -- the Vicon
presentation that you have on the screen appears to be what I’m used to seeing from the Vicon system. myself. I didn’t make the disk
I don’t know whether the State’s Attorney gave you the
original disk that the Sheriff’s office provided to them, or whether they duplicated it, or what not, but the imagery seems to be consistent with what I’m used to seeing on Vicon. Q watch it? A Again, there’s not any way I could tell whether it’s I don’t see anything obvious. Do you see any evidence of tampering with this as you
been tampered with or not. Q
Toward the end of this, there may be some deputies
that show up and I’d like to see if you can say who they are and if Jim Johnson was one of them, according to one of the photographs that’s on the moving screen. A Can you move it a little closer? The elimination is
not really pretty.
cc 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 No. 1? MR. KIMBERLIN: No objection. Q Q A Sure.
Um -- it would appear that one of them may be Jimmy
Johnson, Deputy Johnson. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: The short one? I mean I think the Court -- if the
Court looks at it, he can -- Your Honor can see who they are as well as I can. I think there’s Kim Meronawitz (phonetic sp.).
I think there may be -THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Let me see. I think Jimmy Johnson is one of them.
He’s the shorter one with short blonde hair. BY MR. BOURS: I’m going to show you a package that appears to come
from the State’s Attorney from Montgomery County regarding discovery and just ask this one question. The first document Is that a true
that I’m pulling out here is a two-page report. and accurate copy of Deputy Johnson’s report? A Q Yes, sir.
Is that report kept in the ordinary course of
business of the Sheriff’s office regarding any incidents that occur in the courthouse? A Yes, sir. MR. BOURS: May we have this marked as Respondent’s
cc 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 Q BY MR. BOURS:
29 (The document referred to was marked as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1 for identification.)
If an event occurs in the courthouse where injuries
are sustained by someone as a result of that incident, is there any part of this report or any report that you would keep regarding injuries? A One of the questions on the incident report is a
question about injuries. Q In reference to this incident, was there any reported
or obvious injury to Mr. Kimberlin? A The only way I would know would be by reading the
incident report and the incident report reflects that it was, first of all, that it was prepared by people responding after the incident was over. I think, if I could see the document,
there’s a section of injuries under the name Brett Kimberlin. Injuries. Q It says unknown. Would it have been at least part of the sheriff’s
duties to inquire about injury or help someone obtain treatment for injuries, I assume? A Normally, if there were obvious visible injuries or
if there were some allegations of injuries, there would be a request as to whether or not somebody was injured. But in a
situation where deputies respond after the fact to an incident
cc 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 Q BY MR. BOURS:
30 and there’s no obvious gross physical injury, they may put down unknown. Q Were you present in District Court when Deputy
Johnson testified that there were no signs of injury on Mr. Kimberlin? A I was present in District Court when Deputy Johnson
testified for the entire time he testified. Q A Do you remember that part of his testimony? I don’t specifically remember that. MR. BOURS: Respondent’s No. 1. THE COURT: Any objection? No objection. Your Honor, I’m going to offer
MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT:
I’ll receive it. (The item marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 was received in evidence.)
Based on your recollection of this entire matter, did
you submit to the State’s Attorney’s office individual photographs taken from the video? Was that part of what you
all submitted to the State’s Attorney’s office? A To my knowledge, the Sheriff’s office, through Deputy
Johnson, would have submitted the incident report, the DVD, and several photographs printed out.
cc 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 Q BY MR. BOURS: I’m sorry. Q I’m going to hand that to you and just ask if you
could look at each one and tell me whether that’s the format in which Deputy Johnson would have submitted photographs from the video. In other words, if, are these Sheriff’s department
productions, as it were? A Those appear to be consistent with printouts from the
Sheriff’s office Vicon video system. MR. BOURS: I’m going to ask that the Clerk staple --
I didn’t mean to ignore you, Mr. Kimberlin, if
you’d like to look at them. MR. KIMBERLIN: MR. BOURS: No objection.
I’d like to have these marked,
collectively, as Respondent’s No. 2, then you can staple them further if you’d like, and offer them. objection. THE COURT: All right. I’ll receive it. I think there’s no
(The items were marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2 and were received in evidence.)
Now the time each one is taken is shown down in the
lower right-hand corner, is that correct? A Q They’re self authenticating as to date and time. When we play this for the Judge, or if we play this
for the Judge, that continues to be true, it’s
cc 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 self-authenticating as to the time it was taken? A Yes.
And you can see the time switch from each frame
and you can see that each frame is roughly two seconds after the previous frame. Q One other area that, I guess, qualifies as my part as
opposed to Mr. Kimberlin’s direct, you’re familiar with the rules of this Court and of the Maryland Court of Appeals, are you not, with regard to taking photographs in the courthouse? A Q Yes, sir. I’m going to show you Respondent’s Exhibit No. 3 for This is a copy, I believe, of the Maryland
Rule, is that correct? A Q Yes, sir. Would you just state for the record what the policy
is of people taking photographs inside this court building? A Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-110, the taking of
photographs within the court facility is prohibited absent permission from one of the judicial members of the court. Q Are you aware of any permission having been granted
to Mr. Kimberlin to take a photograph of anybody or anything on January 9th? A On January 9th and until some time after January 9th,
I had no idea who Mr. Kimberlin was, so I wouldn’t know whether or not he had any permission to do anything. MR. BOURS: I offer Respondent’s 3.
cc 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 iPad. Q BY MR. BOURS: Are you aware of whether or not Deputy Johnson THE COURT: I’ll receive it. No objection. (The document marked for
identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 3 was received in evidence.)
investigated an iPad or some form of tablet computer in Mr. Kimberlin’s possession for whether it had a photograph on it? A I’m unaware -- I am aware that in the incident report
there is some discussion of an iPad that -- again, my source is the incident report, but that apparently there was an iPad that Mr. Walker purported -- that Mr. Walker had that was returned to Mr. Kimberlin in the lobby of the courthouse. Q Do you know whether, based on the report of course,
whether it was examined to determine whether -A As far as I can tell, there was no examination of the It was simply one person claimed it was his. Deputy
Johnson had it returned to the person who claimed it was his. Q Is there any indication in the incident report that
there was damage to that iPad? A I didn’t see any indication in the report of damage. MR. BOURS: THE COURT: That’s all the questions I have. Any other questions, sir? No further questions.
cc 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 later. (Witness excused.) MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: May I continue? Who is your next witness? THE COURT: THE WITNESS: All right, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Would you like your computer back? MR. BOURS: Yes. I think we’ll plug it in and use it
MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT:
I would like to be my own witness. You can come up, please. You can
bring whatever you need. Actually, are you going to be offering those? those exhibits and so forth that you will be offering? MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Maybe. I don’t know yet. Are
Well, it might be better to just testify
from there because I don’t want you jumping up and down off the witness stand and running around to get things marked and so forth. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: MR. BOURS: Okay. That’s better.
Any objection from you, Mr. Bours? Maybe at the time of cross-examination,
it would be better for him to be there, but for right now I don’t have a problem with it. THE COURT: but as for now. For cross, he’ll be on the witness stand,
cc 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 stand. THE COURT: Swear him in, please. BRETT KIMBERLIN
the petitioner, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION Sir, you have applied for a peace order This is a trial de novo, as if it
against this gentleman.
didn’t happen in the District Court. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Right. So why is it that you believe you should
have a peace order issued against this man? THE WITNESS: Mr. Walker has been harassing me,
bullying me, inciting others to do -THE COURT: You can have a seat. You don’t have to
If you were in the witness stand, you wouldn’t be
standing up. THE WITNESS: Okay.
Inciting others to do that -MR. BOURS: Excuse me. I have to object the kind of
conclusory and unsupported -THE COURT: Yes. I sustain the objection. You have
to testify to factually what happened.
In other words, when
one says that one was harassed, that’s a conclusory term. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Okay. One has to say that he kept shooting a
cc 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
36 water gun in my face, or pulling my hair, or whatever it is he was doing. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Okay. Presumably, you’re not going to say those The
things, but you have to say factually what occurred.
reason that this case is here, is for the Court to determine whether or not what, in fact, occurred was harassment. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: MR. BOURS: All right. Judge, if we could, the peace order
statute requires that the testimony to the material must be something that happened within 30 days of January 9th. In
other words, the Court has no authority to grant a peace order for something that happened in 2005 or 2007, or even August of last year. This peace order was applied for on January 9th. It
does somewhat specifically deal with something that happened on January 9th, but if it would help, I have a feeling Mr. Kimberlin wants to try to talk about things that happened -THE COURT: Yes. It will shorten this proceeding and That is a statutory
we can get through it very quickly.
requirement and it’s a pretty obvious reason why that’s in the statute, so that we don’t have people coming to court testifying regarding things that happened a year ago, or six months ago, or two years ago.
cc 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
37 So whatever you’re going to testify that he did, it must have occurred between December 9th and January 9th. THE WITNESS: I mean I feel like I have to give a
little background, just a slight little background, not way back. Just a little background. THE COURT: consider that. THE WITNESS: Well, I mean one of the things I have He said that Very little background because I can’t
to do is correct Mr. Bours’ opening statement.
Mr. Walker only got involved with me or my issues in December of 2011. Really what started this inquiry into Mr. Walker was I had, as stated, I had a civil case against a stalker named Seth Allen that resulted in a judgment and also resulted in a peace order against Mr. Allen. The reason that I got a peace
order against Mr. Allen was that he had written, on August 23rd, an e-mail to Mr. Walker and in that e-mail -MR. BOURS: THE COURT: Object. Yes. I’m going to sustain that.
What you need to understand is that if he did what he is alleged to have done, between December 9th and January 9th, and the evidence is clear and convincing, then a peace order will issue even if there was no background. matter. It wouldn’t
Even if you had never seen him before, if he violated
the law such that a peace order should be issued, it will be
cc 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 issued.
38 It doesn’t matter whether you had a history with him A peace order
or whether you didn’t have a history with him. would be appropriate.
So it’s not important and this is a Court trial, not a jury trial. The Court is not going to be influenced by any You could have a mortal enemy
history between these parties.
living right next door and have no contact with that person. THE WITNESS: Well, I just wanted to get to how Mr.
Walker got involved with this case or how he -THE COURT: But you don’t do that in your testimony.
If you want to talk about it in closing argument or something, fine, but I’m not going to have you just correct Mr. Bours. You don’t have to do that. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Okay. What he said wasn’t evidence. What Mr.
Bours said and what you said in your opening statements, that’s not evidence. going to show. That’s just what the parties believe the case is Now you have to show what you said you believe
it was going to show, but it has to have occurred between December 9th and January 9th. THE WITNESS: On or about December 20th, I wrote to
Mr. Walker, who I believed at the time was named Aaron Worthing, an e-mail asking if he would cooperate in providing some information about a stalker that I had sued in Judge Jordan’s court named Seth Allen. Mr. Walker responded --
cc 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 can -THE COURT: I can’t consider what you read. These Web. MR. BOURS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Object. Sustained. That’s hearsay.
I went online and saw Mr. Walker’s
response where he posted on his blog, Allergic to Bull, that “Brett Kimberlin, convicted terrorist and perjurer” -MR. BOURS: THE WITNESS: MR. BOURS: THE WITNESS: his harassment of me. THE COURT: Okay. Understand something. In this Object. Your Honor, I object.
This is something I read. This is not self-authenticating. This is something I read and it shows
book, Subtitle 5, these are the rules of evidence that this Court is governed by. People in the public think that if you
get something off the Web, all of a sudden it’s admissible in court. It couldn’t be further from the truth. It still has to
be authenticated, like any other document. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: All right. Spiderman could be putting stuff on the
You have to be able to authenticate it and you can’t
authenticate that. THE WITNESS: Well, I can tell you what I read and I
rules of evidence have been tested over time and they are there to protect you as well as people who are accused of doing
cc 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 stand. THE COURT: Okay. things. THE WITNESS: All right. Well, when Mr. Walker
testifies, then I’ll ask him if he wrote these. THE COURT: to try the case. THE WITNESS: That’s the only way I can get it in. That’s up to you. I can’t tell you how
So I asked Mr. Walker if he would provide information about Mr. Allen and we had a -- there was a hearing set in Mr. Allen’s case for January 9th. During the period of December
20th and January 9th, Mr. Walker secured the assistance of an attorney. Of course, I -MR. BOURS: I think that’s conclusory, too. I mean
he can provide evidence of that, but I don’t see that he’s authenticated that either, that is to who did what. THE COURT: Let me just ask you a question. What did
this gentleman do to you and when did he do it? THE WITNESS: me terrible names and -THE COURT: terrible -THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: On his blog. How can you prove he did that? Well, I prove it when he gets on the Where was he when he called you I’m trying to explain that. He called
cc 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 filed question. it? THE WITNESS: publishes the blog. THE COURT: It’s his blog. He owns the blog. THE WITNESS: It’s his blog. I mean he admitted that he did it. But he was writing all
He writes that blog.
this terrible stuff on his blog about me. THE COURT: How can you prove that? How can you
prove that his cousin wasn’t sitting in his living room at his computer writing that? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Because he said he did it. The answer to truth is because he said
It’s his blog. I don’t think you’re understanding my
How can you prove that something that comes off my
computer was not done by my daughter, sitting at my house, typing it on my computer? THE WITNESS: How can you prove that?
Judge, because his lawyer -- he
-- the brief that he filed in Judge Rupp’s court, he It says, “I respond to Brett Kimberlin’s motion That’s what he said. That’s --
posted online. and subpoenas.”
So if I write online “I, Mr. Kimberlin,”
whom I’m not, did something, sit right here now and type it online, post it, and somebody gets it offline, makes a copy of it, you think they can take that to court that I wrote, saying I’m Mr. Kimberlin, they can take that to court and prove that you wrote that?
cc 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 moment? THE COURT: Sure. online. THE WITNESS: MR. BOURS: I know. I don’t have to. lawsuit. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Uh-huh. somebody. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Yes. This is a lawsuit. You brought a THE WITNESS:
42 Judge, whether I can prove it or not,
he admitted that he did it. THE COURT: You don’t understand something. You sued
You have to prove those things that you
allege in your lawsuit and you need some evidence independent of “He admitted he did it.” Even a criminal lawyer in a room A State’s
of prosecutors needs more evidence than that.
Attorney can’t come in here and say, “Judge, this guy is guilty because he said he did it.” THE WITNESS: THE COURT: You need more than that.
Judge, you asked me what he did to me. You’re telling me something about online. How is this man harassing
I want to know what he did to you. you? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Okay.
You don’t even have to read what’s
Your Honor, may I interject for just a
cc 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 this? THE WITNESS: MR. BOURS: I don’t have to read what’s online.
The peace order statute is very limited
in its scope and what it says is that he may be entitled to a peace order if he can show harassment under the criminal law article, not some vague feeling of harassment or not liking what’s being written about him. But under the Criminal Law Article, Section 3-803, there are elements to the crime of harassment in Maryland law. What he’s got to show, between December 9, roughly, and January 9, is that Mr. Walker did the things described in the criminal law article, not that there’s a post, or e-mails, or anything else. He’s got to show what’s in that article. It’s
subsection A. THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Bours, would you give him He thinks the Court is
Let him see what the problem is.
giving him a hard time. law says.
I want him to look at, read what the
I have to follow the law. MR. BOURS: Actually, I would give him both because 3-802 is stalking
the definition of stalking is in 3-802.
under the Criminal Law Article and 3-803 is the harassment statute. THE COURT: But let him read that. If he did any of those things that It
See what it says.
are listed there in that section, any of those things. can’t be just something that’s annoying someone.
It has to be
cc 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 one of those things that’s listed in that law, otherwise different judges would be making different decisions willy nilly based on whether or not the judge found that it was harassment.
That’s the reason that the legislature said, “Look, if you’re going to get a peace order for harassment, then the elements of harassment will be those elements that are defined in the Criminal Law Article,” those things. So I have to find
that he did one of those things or more than one. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: he did it and where. THE WITNESS: Let’s talk about it. All right. Did he do any of that? Yes, he did. Okay. Well, let’s talk about that, when
A person may not follow another in or about a public place and maliciously engage in a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys another with the intent to harass, alarm, or annoy another. That’s what he did. Please keep going. Yes. Read the rest, sir.
MR. BOURS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS:
After reasonable warning or request to This
stop by or on the defendant and without legal purpose. section does not apply to peaceable activity intended to express political view or provide information to others.
cc 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. In short, the judge allowed him to seal the motion which identified him, asked him to sit in the spectator’s him -MR. BOURS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Object. Sustained. I have the transcript here. case. statute? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: He came to court -When? On January 9th. Okay. Go ahead. person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, dah, dah, dah. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Okay. Okay. So --
What did he do in violation of that
He had not filed his appearance in the He was not subpoenaed He asked to make an
He was not a lawyer in the case. He came before Judge Rupp.
in the case.
emergency motion to seal a document that I had filed in court identifying him as Aaron Walker rather than Aaron Worthing. put enough information in my filing in the court to identify him so that he could not say that he was not Aaron Walker. He came into the court. The judge was taken aback by I
I can show
cc 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 heard. THE COURT: Don’t characterize it. THE WITNESS: Okay. Mr. Walker said that he was You need to say exactly what he said. whatever. seating. Mr. Walker kept objecting -MR. BOURS: THE COURT: Object. I’ll sustain that. He can object to
That has nothing to do with you. THE WITNESS: Well, the judge told him if he kept
objecting, he would have the sheriff remove him. Mr. Walker -- When the hearing ended, Mr. Walker followed me outside the courtroom and told me that he was going to continue harassing me. MR. BOURS: He --
Judge, could you instruct Mr. Kimberlin
at least to give quotes of what was said as opposed to characterizations? THE WITNESS: I heard Mr. -- okay. I’ll say what I
going to continue harassing me. THE COURT: Well, I don’t think he said he was going He didn’t speak in those terms. Quote him.
to continue harassing you. What did he say? THE WITNESS: Then as we -THE COURT:
That’s what I recall.
You’re not understanding me.
did not come out of that courtroom and say he is going to
cc 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 continue -- he said, quote, “I” what? THE WITNESS: “I am going to continue to harass, expose,” something about that. you, something to that effect.
I’m going to continue bothering I recall the word harassment.
Maybe it was bothering, exposing, something to that effect. And as we exited the two doors, he said, “You abused the court process by using subpoenas to identify me.” As we continued to exit the second door, he got very loud and I felt threatened by his aggressive behavior toward me. I backed up. I backed up more and more. Finally, I
pulled out my iPad because I wanted to document the fact that he was coming at me. As I lifted my iPad, Mr. Walker came to me with his -- with his hand and hit me in the eye, or the face. continued to come at me and wrestled with me for my iPad. Fearing that my iPad would be destroyed from Mr. Walker’s conduct, I finally released it and I heard someone come behind me, out of the courtroom, saying, “He attacked him, he attacked him.” Two courtroom staff came running out of the courtroom and told Mr. Walker to get away from me, and they called the police. The -- within a very short time, eight or nine He
deputies came up to the ninth floor and Mr. Walker had my iPad still. him. He -- the deputy went over and took the iPad away from I told the deputies that he had struck me, assaulted me.
cc 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
48 They advised me to go to the commissioner’s office and get a -press assault charges and to get a peace order against Mr. Walker. That’s what happened on January 9th. I did that. First of
Since then, I have been retaliated against.
all, after that incident, I had a very distinct problem with my eyes. I had blurry vision in my eyes and -MR. BOURS: THE COURT: MR. BOURS: medical diagnosis. Object. What’s the basis of that? It sounds like he’s trying to give a There are proper ways to do that. But I
think all he’s entitled to state is what my client did to him, not what it caused. THE COURT: peace order. THE WITNESS: Well, I ended up at the hospital. I Yes. There are no damages awarded in a
ended up at Suburban Hospital for six hours. THE COURT: I mean you understand you don’t get
damages in a peace order. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: I’m not asking for damages right now. But go ahead. I’m saying what happened. I had a
terrible -- a screaming headache. eye. I had back pain.
I had blurry vision in my
I went to a clinic over here on Seven
Locks and the doctor looked at me and -MR. BOURS: Object.
cc 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 you said? THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Yes. So I had -- I was assaulted. said. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Sustained.
49 You can’t say what the doctor
Well, the result was I was sent to the
emergency ward at Suburban Hospital where I went there and was there for approximately six hours, and had a CAT Scan, multiple other evaluations -MR. BOURS: THE COURT: Judge, I object again. I sustain that.
You see, that has nothing to do with whether a peace order is granted or not. THE WITNESS: You’re going to sustain the objection
I was --
I have a picture that I took.
Here’s the picture that I took
from my iPad and I would like to introduce that into evidence. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: corresponds -THE COURT: Taking pictures in a courthouse is Well, I’ll receive it. And I would like to show how it
illegal, but if you want to offer that up, I’ll receive it. THE WITNESS: Yeah. I’d like to. I mean I was
taking a picture to protect myself. (The photograph was marked for identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit
cc 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. BOURS: these? THE COURT: THE WITNESS: No. 2 was received in evidence.)
You know, this -- on the pictures that
I introduced into evidence earlier, the same -- you can see also the picture of the hand coming towards me, hitting me. The following day, I took pictures of the black eye that I had. I would like to introduce these, too. You have to have an item marked before I
THE COURT: can address it. THE WITNESS:
Do you want to see these, either one of
Have it marked first so the record shows
what it is that the Court is considering. What are those, 4 and 5? (The photographs were marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit Nos. 4 and 5.) Judge, I think he does need to testify as
to each exhibit before they are admitted, not just hand them up. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: evidence the exhibits. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: What is the number of the exhibit? Exhibit No. 4. What is No. 4? He hasn’t offered them yet. Okay. I’d like to offer them into
cc 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 WITNESS: Plaintiff’s 4 is a picture of Mr.
Walker’s hand coming towards my face. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: What is No. 5? It’s a picture of the day after the
event, a picture of my black eye from the assault. MR. BOURS: THE COURT: I object to that. Okay. You can have a seat. You’re
testifying now, so have a seat. I’ll reserve on that. What else happened on that day? THE WITNESS: So on that day, that’s what happened.
I spent my evening in the hospital. And since then, Mr. Walker has been engaged in a campaign, up until the peace order was issued in this case, Your Honor, in a campaign against me. MR. BOURS: THE COURT: what he did. THE WITNESS: Okay. Mr. Walker filed a criminal Object to the characterization. Sustained. You have to testify as to
charge against me, which the District Attorney dismissed without even -MR. BOURS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Object. Object.
Sustained. Mr. Walker also filed a peace order
against another man named Neil Ralhouser (phonetic sp.).
cc 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 relevant. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Sustained. It’s not. Sustained. annoyance. THE COURT: You can testify that somebody came to with it. case. THE WITNESS: Well, he sent the police out to my MR. BOURS: THE COURT: Object. Sustained, sir.
That has nothing to do
Mr. Ralhouser’s case has nothing to do with this
house to serve Mr. Ralhouser. MR. BOURS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Object. Well -That’s harassment. I mean it’s
your house, but you can’t testify as to what he told them or -THE WITNESS: Okay. Three deputies showed up at my
house to serve a peace order on Neil Ralhouser and I told them Neil Ralhouser has never even been to my house. MR. BOURS: Your Honor, I object. Mr. Walker --
This really isn’t
Also, when I went to the peace order
hearing on Mr. Ralhouser and told the judge what happened, she, she threw out the peace order against Mr. Ralhouser. MR. BOURS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Object. Sustained. Then Mr. Worthing engaged, again, in a
Twitter campaign against me online.
cc 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. BOURS: THE COURT: Object. Sustained.
That objection is going to sustain every time you characterize things like “engaged in a campaign.” If you try
to stick to what that statute says, you won’t be drawing objections. THE WITNESS: against me in Virginia. MR. BOURS: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: against you. Object. Here’s a copy. I have no doubt that he filed a lawsuit Mr. Walker filed a $66,000,000 lawsuit
There’s a lawsuit -I’m saying -You’re being sued in Virginia. I mean
THE WITNESS: THE COURT:
what does that have to do with this case? THE WITNESS: Well, it’s retaliation. It’s just
because I filed a peace order against him. charges against him. it’s about.
I filed criminal That’s what
This is all retaliation.
So that’s what Mr. Walker has done. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Sir, at Docket Entry No. 1 -Right. -- in this file -Yes. -- you have a petition for a peace order.
cc 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 WITNESS: THE COURT: Right.
In that petition, Docket Entry No. 1, and
the Court will take judicial notice of its own pleadings in Case No. ending in 8444, and what you have alleged and what you have to prove, and the only thing you have to prove, is this. In paragraph 1, the details of what happened are described as follows, and the instructions on the form are be as specific as you can. What you wrote is, Mr. Walker assaulted me while He hit me in the face, chest, and
leaving the courtroom.
shoulder, and took my iPad, and threatened to -MR. BOURS: THE COURT: you need to prove. I believe that says to harass me more. Harass me more. That’s the limit of what
That is exactly what you need to prove and
that is why this case is here. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: I think I -So do you have any other testimony as
regards that, because that’s what you went to court for? THE WITNESS: I’ve proven that. Yeah. And that’s -- I believe that It resulted in injuries.
He assaulted me.
I went to the hospital. THE COURT: On the form, it also lists, you have to
indicate whether there was kicking, punching, choking, slapping, shooting, rape, or other things, hitting, stabbing, shoving, threats, and you checked shoving, threats of violence, harassment, and stalking. I don’t know about stalking, but you
cc 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 to that?
55 checked those things and you have testified that he did those things. Is there anything else that he did on that day? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Not on January 9th. Okay. You understand that you’re limited That’s all the Court
That’s what you filed in court.
can consider is what happened on that day and that’s what this appeal is from. Had the complaint alleged some of the conduct that you have testified that he engaged in, that would be one thing. I could consider it. But you don’t allege it. It’s not there.
It’s a trial de novo, but it’s not a trial de novo to go back and bring up all the things that are not in the complaint, that you didn’t file. It’s a trial de novo on the case below. You
can’t add things when you come up here that are not in the file below. Now if there were things in here, but they were not argued or were not mentioned, but they are in the complaint, you wouldn’t be prohibited from bringing up those things. Lawyers often bring up things in Circuit Court in a trial de novo that they realize that they didn’t argue, or didn’t articulate, or didn’t point out to the court in trial below, but you don’t have that here. So is there anything else about that day that you wish to testify to before I allow Mr. Bours to cross, if he has
cc 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 any, on that day? THE WITNESS:
Well, I would like to point out since
you’ve seen the pictures, I would like to describe in the one picture where his hand came towards me, which is on the Court -THE COURT: THE WITNESS: the police. I saw that. And also the fact that I didn’t call
Someone else called the police to come up. Object to that. I’ll sustain the objection.
MR. BOURS: THE COURT:
Clearly in the photographs, the sheriffs are here. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Because -There are cameras in the courthouse. They’re being watched all the
They don’t need to be called. time -THE WITNESS: THE COURT: right there. Right.
-- and there are cameras.
If I were to start flipping out on the bench, the So maybe they
sheriffs would be here in just a few minutes.
didn’t need to be called, but it’s lunch time, gentlemen. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Oh boy. So why don’t we take a break, have lunch,
come back, and we’ll finish up when we come back from lunch. No witnesses in this case. There was a rule on
witnesses and any witnesses should not speak among themselves
cc 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 Q BY MR. BOURS: Thanks. or with anyone else about their testimony. You can leave that unless you want to work on it.
mean, Mr. Bours, you can leave anything in the courtroom that you want to leave. MR. BOURS: Judge, what I’m going to do is I’m going
to leave with the clerk just so I won’t be carrying this around all day. THE COURT: THE BAILIFF: (Recess) THE COURT: Thank you. Hope you had a good lunch. It will be locked. All rise. The Court is in recess.
Have a seat, please. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Bours? MR. BOURS: Yes. I believe Mr. Kimberlin is finished
on his direct examination. THE COURT: MR. BOURS: Okay. Please. CROSS-EXAMINATION Do you want him to take the stand?
Sir, if you would, please, you may just simply turn You are not required to refer to them.
those documents over.
If you need to refresh your recollection about something in order to give an answer, say so before you look at documents. First thing I want to ask you is, I notice that you brought with you this laptop of some sort. It’s an Apple
cc 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 product, is it not? A Q A Q Yes, sir. Is that called an iBook? No. That’s a MacBook. The MacBook is actually like a laptop
computer, is that correct? A Q A Q A Q Yes, sir. It’s different from an iPad? Yes, sir. Did you bring the iPad with you today? No, sir. You did have an iPad with you on January 9th, though,
when you appeared before Judge Rupp on motions, is that correct? A Q Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Why specifically did you bring an iPad to court on
January 9th? A Well, there were notes in there that I had taken for
the court proceedings. Q A Pardon me? There were notes in the iPad that I had taken for the
court proceedings and it’s very easy to carry. Q A But did you bring this MacBook? No. The reason I brought that today was because it
has the video on it and video can’t -- I couldn’t get -- I mean
cc 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 video is a strange video and I could not get it on the iPad. Q A Q Okay. So I brought -- I loaded it on this one.
Now the iPad you brought with you on January 9th had
a camera in it, correct? A Q Yes, sir. Tell the Court physically how you operate that camera
from the iPad. A Q It’s just one button. Just one button.
Are you talking like an icon that you push and it
activates the camera? A I believe so. It’s -- the camera is actually a part
of the iPad and so if you just hold the iPad up, and you don’t have to even focus it or anything. and it takes the picture. Q So are you saying on the iPad, when you push the You just push the button
button on the iPad -A Q A On the i --- it actually takes the picture? Well, I mean if it’s on. Right. You just push the icon and
it takes a picture. Q
Was your iPad on when you walked out of the courtroom
on January 9th? A I believe I had it on during the session just in case
cc 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 I needed to refer to notes. lasts a long time. Q Uh-huh.
60 They last -- the battery
But the proceedings were completely finished in front
of Judge Rupp that day, correct? A Q right? A I believe I had it on during the proceedings, yeah, The Excuse me? The proceedings had completely finished, is that
just as a -- when you say on, I mean the cover is closed.
iPad that I had has a cover that closes and puts it to -- it’s kind of to sleep when it’s closed. on, but the cover was closed. Q So the iPad was technically
So in other words --
So it would have been closed when you walked out of
the courtroom? A Q Exactly. Uh-huh.
The hearing that day was designed to get damages
against Mr. Allen or a contempt citation against Mr. Allen, the defendant in that case, for continuing to interfere with your business and -A Q And for violation of the court order. Uh-huh.
In order to support the claim that he had done that,
didn’t you ask that the identity of Aaron Worthing be established so you could subpoena him as a witness? A Q Yes, I did. Then you learned who Aaron Worthing was, the blogger
cc 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? A Q A Q A Q A Q with it? A I tried to verify it. I did Google searches and I learned it on December 31st. How? I got a tip, anonymous tip. Aaron Worthing was, is that correct? A Q Not through the court proceedings. I understand that, but how and when did you learn
An anonymous tip via the internet, e-mail, or what? Yes. It was actually by phone.
By telephone? Uh-huh. After you received that information, what did you do
tried to verify that, in fact, Mr. Walker was Aaron Worthing and vice versa, and I was able to locate a bunch of -- a lot of documents online that made me comfortable that Aaron Walker was actually Aaron Worthing. Q Pending before the Court, in that civil action
against Mr. Allen, was a motion to require Google to disclose the identity of Mr. Worthing, is that correct? A Q Right. Right.
So after you learned the information December 31st,
you filed a request to withdraw that motion, is that right? A Yes, because I had already learned the information.
cc 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 I didn’t want to take up the Court’s time with a motion that was basically moot. Q
But in the motion you filed to withdraw, you put all
that information in your motion, didn’t you? A Not all of it. I have a lot more information that I
didn’t put in there.
I put his name, his address, where he
worked, where he went to school, and things like that so that there would be no question that he was that person. Q That’s what you say your motive was, but, in fact,
that put it in a public record, is that correct? A Q Well, it’s a court case. And you knew that that made it public by your filing
it there, correct? A I filed it in a court case. I didn’t make it -- I
didn’t go public with it. Q
I haven’t done that.
Prior to your doing that, Mr. Worthing, through an
attorney named Kingsley, had filed an opposition to disclosure of his identity, had he not? A Q A Q It’s a she. Worthing. Okay. Through Beth Kingsley, a motion had been filed Kingsley is a she. Let’s assume Worthing is a he.
opposing the disclosure of his true identity, correct? A Right. And the judge was going to have a -- I
believe that the judge was going to have a hearing on that on
cc 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
63 the 9th and because I found out that information through other means and verified that information through online sources -Q Kimberlin. A Q Okay. You were trying to find out the identity through That was being opposed by an attorney named This is really kind of a simple proposition, Mr.
Beth Kingsley on -A Q A Q A Q Right. -- behalf of the anonymous blogger Aaron Worthing. Right. That was all going on. Right. In other words, they were opposing the identity being
revealed, correct? A Q A to quash. Q So then you filed in the jacket all the identifying Right. And opposing your subpoena for him to be a witness. Yeah. That’s basically the motion. It was a motion
information about him and you withdrew the motion before Judge Rupp, is that correct? A Yeah. I -- yeah. I let the judge know that it was
moot and this is why. Q You agree, I think you even said on your direct, that
cc 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 you? A No. He was -- he was being an aggressor. He was iPad. A Yeah. I did take a photograph. I did take a this gentleman to my left came to court and asked that your
motion to withdraw be sealed because it contained his identity, correct? A Q Yes. And the judge granted that motion.
But you still had your iPad with you and you tried to
take a photograph of him outside the courtroom, didn’t you? A taken -Q Well, you did try to take a photograph with your That’s not the series of events. I would not have
photograph. Q A Q It’s the one you put in evidence. Exactly. You claim you took that only because he was attacking
verbally aggressive and physically aggressive toward me, and he was coming at me, and I felt that in order to memorialize that aggressive behavior, I took a picture. And I’m very well aware
of the rule requiring -- I mean prohibiting photos in the courthouse and so -Q A You are now or you were then? No. Of course I was then.
And I talked to the deputies when they came up and I
told them that I had taken a picture, and -Q Let's stop here because
want to focus on something.
January 9th is the first day you ever saw this gentleman to my left in person, is that correct?
Yes. You had never seen a picture of him, had you, on his
blog or anywhere else?
You've never seen him in any other public place, but
10 11 12 13 14
a courthouse, have you? A Q
Since January 9th, the only times you've ever seen
him have been in connection with court proceedings either you or he filed, correct?
Yes. Based on what you found out about him December 31st,
you understand he lives in Manassas, Virginia?
Yes, sir. Just state for the record your home address, where
19 20 21
you actually live. A
live in Bethesda.
Would you give us the address?
Do you go to an office or a place of work everyday? Yes.
cc 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 Q A Q A Q Where is that? It’s in Cabin John, Maryland. In Cabin John and not Washington, D.C.? No. Well, when you asked for protection through this
peace order, you left it open that he couldn’t see you anywhere, is that correct? A Well, I mean that was actually because the
commissioner -- I believe it was the commissioner or the judge, one of the two, suggested that that would be a good thing to do. Q But other than in courtrooms or court settings
involving legal proceedings, you’ve never seen this gentleman to my left at all, right? A Q Never. He, to your knowledge, has never followed you around
in a public place other than the limited time that you saw him here on January 9th where he came out of the courtroom behind you, correct? A Q A Q No. He’s done a lot of blogging about me. I’m talking about in person.
No, sir. No.
He followed me out of that courtroom. You don’t claim any other
But that’s the only time.
time that he has followed you in a public place, correct? A Well, I don’t know. I really don’t know.
cc 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 know. online. Q did that? A Q A Q That he followed me? Yes. No. I can say -Do you have any witnesses here who can say that he
Before the judge showed you the book today that had
the statutes about stalking and harassment under the Criminal Code, had you ever read those before? A Q Yes. Uh-huh.
Define how he has stalked you within the meaning of
the statute. A Well, within the meaning of the statute, I don’t I just know that he has bullied me. He’s harassed me He’s called me
He’s written terrible things about me.
terrible names. Q Well, the terrible things he’s written about you deal
with your criminal background, correct? A Q No, not necessarily. I mean if he calls me human --
Well, besides your criminal background, what has he
talked about? A a father. If he calls me human filth, I’m not human filth. I’m a husband. I’m the director of a nonprofit. That’s what he called I’m
I’m a human being. me online.
I’m not human filth.
And he told people not to donate to my nonprofits
or he would seek criminal and civil penalties against them.
cc 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 Q That’s what you believe based on things you can’t
authenticate, correct? A Okay. When he gets on -- when he gets on the stand,
we’ll find out, okay. Q Sir, what I’m asking you is did you ever see him do
any of the acts that are described in the statute on stalking? A Q The statute on harassment. So you admit there is no stalking within the meaning
of that statute? A Well, possibly. I didn’t say that -- when I read the
statute over here a minute ago, I said that he had met the harassment statute. Q Do you have any other testimony yourself or any
witnesses here about the other elements of the statute on harassment? A Q A The other elements? Yes. You mean by the fact that he followed me in a public
place, and he assaulted me in a public place, and that he retaliated against me after that with -Q No. I mean did you read the statute today and do you
have any other evidence to offer about those issues? A Any other evidence other than the fact that he
attacked -Q No. Not the fact that he -- evidence, an
cc 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
69 observation, things you saw or heard in person, not things you read on a Web site or anything else. A Like I said, Mr. Walker assaulted me, followed me out
of the courtroom, and attacked me. Q In connection with the assault, will you tell this Give us a concise,
Judge now in what manner he assaulted you?
but complete statement of the ways in which he assaulted you on January 9th. A Well, as I said, he -- when he came out of the
courtroom, he was berating me with comments, and being aggressive, and coming toward me. And I felt threatened, so I
pulled the iPad out to catch him, because I could see that he was getting ready to actually physically hit me, and I backed up and clicked the picture. I got his hand as it was coming
toward me and it hit me some -- somehow it hit me in the eye. I mean everything happened very quickly. And he started
wrestling with me and I felt bumps on my side, my chest, and my back twisted. And he’s wrestling me for the iPad and he actually took the iPad away from me. And I didn’t want to struggle with
the iPad too much because I was afraid it would break, and my kids use that iPad a lot and I didn’t want to disappoint them, so I let it go. Q A And he -- then the man --
Let me try a couple of things here. Okay.
cc 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 us? A Q did next. Exactly. Yeah. fist. Q Q A Q A Did he knock you down? No. He hit me.
He hit you? Well, his hand hit me. His hand hit me. Whether it
was his fingers or his hand like this, I don’t know, but I -Q A Are you claiming that he hit you with his fist? No. I don’t know if it was -- I can’t say it was a
I can say it was a hand. Isn’t it really a fact that he was just holding up
his hand so you couldn’t take a photograph of him? A Q from you? A Q A Q A Q No, sir. I -- no, sir. Not at all. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
And then he grabbed the iPad from you and walked away
That’s not a fact? That’s not a fact at all. I mean I --
Now you’ve apparently watched the video? Yes. Do you claim the video supports what you’ve just told
Let’s take it in order, after this happened, what you Are you telling us the sheriffs suggested that you
file charges and a peace order or -A No. No.
cc 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 Court. And I mean there was more of a conversation but basically they escorted me to -Q Q
71 -- they said that’s what you would have to do because
they didn’t see it? A No. When they came up, I -- when they came up from
the elevator, I met them, and walked them over, and I pointed to Mr. Walker. I said, that man hit me, and he’s got my iPad, and can you arrest him for assault. And they said, well, we didn’t see it. arrest him for assault right now. commissioner’s office. I said, well, where’s the commissioner’s office. And they said, it’s across the street at the District We can’t
You’ll have to go to the
But they didn’t tell you that they thought you should
do that, they just told you how to do it? A No. They said that if he assaulted -- if he hit me,
then I should go and -Q A Q A You should go? Yes. Because they could --
Not that that’s the only recourse you had? Yeah. Because they couldn’t arrest him because they That’s what they said.
didn’t see it. Q
So when you went to the commissioner’s office, you
cc 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 A Q Okay. I put the exhibit sticker or the clerk has put the Q went over to the new District Court building at 191 East Jefferson? A Q Yes, sir. You dealt with the peace order and the criminal
charges at the same time? A I believe so. MR. BOURS: Court’s indulgence.
BY MR. BOURS: This is going to be Respondent’s Exhibit No. 4 for For explanation purposes, it’s a certified
court record of the District Court of Maryland. (The document referred to was marked as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 4 for identification.)
exhibit sticker on this page, statement of charges. A Q Uh-huh. I want to ask if the application for statement of
charges is in your handwriting. A Q A Q Yes, it is. Did you sign it on the last page of this exhibit? Yes. Uh-huh.
Did anyone make any suggestions on what you were to
put in this?
cc 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. Q It had nothing to do with that? A Just, I think, what we were talking about, the
employment thing, to leave that kind of amorphous. Q A Q A Q This is the application for the criminal charge. Oh. Did anybody tell you what to put in here? No. Not that I know of.
Did you make an effort to be accurate with what you
put in here? A I assume that it was accurate since it was pretty
much at the time. Q A Q A Q Did you sign it under oath? Yes. Under the penalties of perjury? Yes. You are the same Brett Kimberlin that was convicted
of perjury back in 1980, correct? A Q Kimberlin? A Q I was a teenager. You were involved in a teenage distribution issue or Yeah. When I was a teenager.
Actually, it was after you turned 18, wasn’t it, Mr.
a conspiracy to distribute 10,000 pounds of marijuana, right? A No. That wasn’t that. It had nothing to do with
cc 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 A Q A Q No. But it was perjury before the Grand Jury, right? Yeah. It was, like I said, I was 19.
And you were supposed to testify about the
circumstances of that 10,000 pounds of marijuana, right? A Q No. That had nothing to do with that.
That was part of your plea bargain was that you were
testifying in front of the Grand Jury. A Q A Q No. No. It had nothing to do with that.
But you were convicted? Of what? Perjury in connection with that and you served time
in jail on that, didn’t you? A Q A Q Yeah. As an adult. Eighteen days. You were subsequently involved in this case where
bombs were set off and people were hurt, correct, known as the Speedway Bomb? A Q correct? A Q Yeah. And a man who was injured in those bombings actually Yeah. You were convicted of a number of counts on that,
killed himself because of his severe injuries, correct?
cc 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 A I have no evidence of that. I have no information
about that. Q You were sued for it and there was $1,000,000
judgment in favor of his widow against you, right? A Q Yes. It was a condition of federal parole that you pay
that judgment, correct? A Q You’re getting into nuances. Well, it’s not a nuance that your parole was revoked
because you didn’t, is that correct? A Q A Q Not exactly, but again -You filed appeals in connection with that, correct? Yes. I’ll come back to that. Besides this and the peace order, did you swear under oath to anybody else about the events of January 9th? A Q What do you mean to anyone else? Did you file any other applications, or civil suits,
or anything else involving the events of January 9th? A Q The peace order. Now that same day -- and, by the way, according to
the documentation, it was about 12:39 when you got the charges of assault. A Q Does that sound about right?
Approximately. There wasn’t any delay. You had to run across the
cc 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 Q BY MR. BOURS: guess. Number 5? street. A No. I went straight over there. Judge, I’m going to offer Respondent’s
MR. BOURS: Exhibit No. 4.
Could I explain that I don’t know it happened,
but when District Court put together this certification, they included somebody else’s case. THE COURT: MR. BOURS: It happens. Don’t know how, but this is all part of
one certification and that’s the relevance. THE COURT: I see that more times than you would
(The item marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 4 was received in evidence.)
Later in the afternoon on January 9th, did you send
an e-mail to Beth Kingsley? A Q e-mail? A Q Yes. Uh-huh. The top is irrelevant, Probably. Did you use Justice Through Music as your return on
Do you want to look at this?
but is that your e-mail to Beth Kingsley? A Uh-huh. Yeah.
cc 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 Q BY MR. BOURS: You have become aware that this gentleman is an Q
77 In that e-mail, did you say, I just finished pressing
charges against him for assault and battery and got a peace order against him. Nine deputies had to back him off. He
decked me in the face, hit me in the shoulder and chest, pushed me, grabbed my iPad away from me, and wrestled me. A Q That’s true. You say that’s true and that’s also what you put in
the e-mail to her, correct? A Right. Uh-huh. I want to offer No. 5. It will be received. (The item marked for identification as Defendant’s's Exhibit No. 5 was received in evidence.)
MR. BOURS: THE COURT:
attorney, correct? A Q Yes. You also became aware, subsequent to the events of
January 9th, that the State’s Attorney for Montgomery County was not going to prosecute the criminal case, is that right? A Yeah. Had a long talk with him. They said that
since there’s a peace order, that they didn’t think that -Q A Excuse me. Okay. Excuse me.
cc 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 it. Q But you’re understanding is you never saw the line Q question. A Q Okay. All right. I want to show you an exhibit. There’s no pending
Defendant’s Exhibit No. 6, a certified copy.
see a copy of this sometime prior to the time when the case was dropped? A Q A Q No. I never saw that.
You never saw it? Uhn-uh. I’ll show you what is marked Defendant’s Exhibit 7
for identification, a certified copy of a motion. A Q A Q A Yeah. So what are you showing me?
Is this genuine and did you file it? Yeah. Uh-huh.
But you’re saying you never saw No. 6? I don’t think I ever saw that. No. I mean I talked
to them and they told me they were dismissing it. Q A Q So -I think that -You styled your pleading Victim Complainant Brett
Kimberlin’s Motion in Opposition to State’s Motion to Nolle Prosse this case? A Yeah. They told me they were going to nolle prosse
cc 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 Q BY MR. BOURS: Mr. Kimberlin, prior to filing that, did you know may. THE COURT: They will be received. (The documents marked for where they said they were nolle prossing it? A No. I never saw that. Judge, I’d like to offer 6 and 7, if I
identification as Defendant's Exhibit Nos. 6 and 7 were received in evidence.)
that the State has a right to drop cases? A Yeah. I had a very long talk with the lady there and
she told me that there’s -Q Excuse me. Prior to filing the motion that is part
of No. 7, did you know the State had the absolute right to drop a case? A Q Absolutely. Of course.
So in other words, you filed this multi-page
opposition to their absolute right to drop the case and put that in a public record, is that correct? A charges. I filed it because I didn’t want them to drop the That’s why I filed it. And I felt like I wanted to
get it before a judge and make my case before a judge and I thought that I would be able to have that motion heard. I was
cc 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 file? A Q Yeah. Uh-huh.
80 also in touch with several people and they said yes, including the victim’s advocate. I talked at long length with the
victim’s advocate and she suggested that I file that motion. Q A Q She? What’s her name?
Donna Becker (phonetic sp.). She told you could file an opposition in the court
Sir, isn’t it a fact that this is just part of your
ongoing campaign, your campaign, to put materials about my client in public records so that other people can look at them and potentially put him in danger? A Oh come on. I -- the State’s Attorney called me up
and had a long talk with me. Q A Q A Excuse me. Could you answer my question?
That’s totally false. You are putting these things in public records -That’s totally false. She told me -- she actually
told me, she said -Q A Q A She who? The lady that I was talking to, um -Margaret Schweitzer (phonetic sp.)? No. The lady that I was talking to said I could make a plea to Margaret Schweitzer or John McCarthy (phonetic sp.) to
cc 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 prosecute, and that I could go to court, and that she would give me time, a whole week, to make my plea, to go to John McCarthy or Schweitzer and make my case.
And the nolle prosse I
motion was filed within two days after she talked to me. felt like they had misled me. Q A Q Okay. And I did write a long letter -There’s no pending question at this point.
You do admit that, other than court proceedings, you have not seen Mr. Walker any other time? A No. MR. BOURS: Judge, I’d like to reserve, potentially,
the right to call him again, but I have no further questions at this time. THE COURT: Very well.
Any other witnesses, sir? MR. KIMBERLIN: I have no other witnesses. I would
just like to make a point about two things that he brought up during the cross. The first has to do with the policy on phones. aware of the -- I mean on photographs. policy before I went to court. Walker in the courtroom. I was aware of the I was
I did not take pictures of Mr.
If I wanted a, quote, picture of him,
I could have taken it surreptitiously many times, you know, if that’s what my motive was.
cc 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 now. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Okay.
82 The only picture that I got was that picture of him coming at me with the hand. That certainly -- and the policy Security personnel or
specifically says violation of the rule.
other court personnel may confiscate or retain an electronic device that is used in violation of Maryland Rule 16-110, subject to further order of the Court or until the owner leaves the building. I understood that and when the police came up, I told them that I had taken a picture. I showed them the iPad and They, you know -- Mr. He’s not a court He took it
they did not take the iPad from me. Walker is not a security personnel. personnel. from me.
He had no right to confiscate my iPad.
You know, if he didn’t want me taking a picture, he
could have stopped right there and said, I’m going to go tell the court personnel that Mr. Kimberlin took a picture or whatever. THE COURT: Hold on a second. You’re into argument
Have you rested your case? No. The other thing that Mr. --
MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT:
You’re giving factual testimony. Okay. I’m just trying to respond to
MR. KIMBERLIN: something that he said. THE COURT:
I was trying to --
cc 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:
83 I was misusing the court process or
something to identify Mr. Walker. THE COURT: redirect testimony. Go ahead. REDIRECT EXAMINATION THE WITNESS: Mr. Walker had been involved with Seth For the record, I’ll consider this
Allen’s case for a long time and Judge Jordan issued a court order that allowed me to take further discovery in the form of interrogatories, and I propounded interrogatories to Mr. Aaron Worthing but I couldn’t find him. He professed to be an attorney. I didn’t know who he was. I looked on all the legal
Martindale-Hubbells and all this, trying to find out who Aaron Worthing was. There was no Aaron Worthing. So that’s why I
filed a motion with the Court to order the identity of Mr. Worthing so that I could serve him with the interrogatories that Judge Jordan had ordered and allowed. fact. It had nothing to do with, quote, out him or identify him, or some nefarious purposes that I’m being accused of. have never published his name in any way, shape, or form. don’t blog myself. blogs myself. right. THE COURT: All right. I don’t Tweet myself. I I That’s a simple
I don’t comment on
So for him to say that was my motivation is not
cc 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 Any other witnesses? MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: MR. BOURS: No, sir.
Is the petition addressed? I’m going to ask that you make a finding
now that the petitioner has not met, even initially, the burden of proof required under the statute. There’s a part of this, I
assume, that he’s just completely unaware and there’s just been no testimony in support of it. A final peace order requires a
showing that one of the acts that is prohibited under Section 3-1503 has occurred and that it’s likely to recur. in question is (c)(II). orders. If the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent has committed one of the acts in the first statute and is likely to commit in the future an act specified in 3-1503(a) of the subtitle against the petitioner, then you can issue the peace order. Now I don’t think you should find, ultimately, that there’s clear and convincing evidence that any act, including assault, has occurred. Certainly, there’s no proof of The statute
It’s 3-1505(c)(1)(ii), final peace
harassment which was the basis of the District Court order under that statute. On top of that, there is absolutely no
evidence at all that this man is likely to commit in the future an act specified in 3-1503. There’s just no testimony at all This is
and without that, the Court can’t grant a peace order.
cc 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
85 a peace order that should never have been issued when you get right down to it. There’s certainly no support for harassment. It’s
I put the statute back up there, but -- oh. Courts and Judicial Proceedings, Your Honor. THE COURT: MR. BOURS: 3-15 what? 3-1505(c)(ii).
This is very different from protective orders in a family case. case. I mean you don’t even get one bite in the family
If you hit somebody, you can have a protective order
issued against you. THE COURT: Okay. May I respond?
MR. KIMBERLIN: MR. BOURS: THE COURT: MR. BOURS:
So in that -Sure. Based on the law, I think you can find,
at this point, that the petitioner has not met the required standard of proof in any respect for the Court to issue a peace order. We don’t need to go any further. THE COURT: Have you rested? You weren’t calling any
other witnesses, correct? MR. KIMBERLIN: No. I’ve rested, but I’d like to
respond to what he just said about future. THE COURT: have you respond. MR. KIMBERLIN: Thank you. I have to let you respond. I can’t not
cc 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 to occur. you. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.
86 I want you to respond and I’ll hear from
Now he talks about the future and this is not likely The problem with his argument is that following the
January 9th assault, you know, if Mr. Walker had said, I apologize, everything is cool, leave me alone, I leave you alone, fine. That’s all I’ve ever asked of him is to just But he didn’t. He filed a criminal charge
leave me alone. against me.
He filed a $66,000,000 -Objection. That’s not in evidence.
MR. KIMBERLIN: You’re saying -THE COURT:
You’re talking about the future.
This is argument.
But he’s talking about the future, Its already occurred, you know.
whether it’s likely to occur. Maybe not an assault, but -THE COURT:
But you understand that what has to occur
is what is prohibited by 1-503(a), those things that are prohibited in the peace order statute, stalking, annoying. Those are the things that, assault in any degree, an act that places petitioner in fear of serious bodily harm. things. What evidence is there that any of the things that are prohibited in Section 3-1503 is likely to re-occur? If you Those
cc 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 had -MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: No. No. order.
87 notice, it does not say here that the respondent may not file a lawsuit, may not press criminal charges. prohibited. Those things are not A person
First of all, they cannot be prohibited.
has a right if they want to -- because we’re not here to litigate the lawsuit. I know you understand what its contents
are, but that civil law case may or may not stand on its own merit even if this proceeding never occurred. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: No. I know.
So I cannot prohibit someone, in a
procedure like this, from filing a lawsuit. MR. KIMBERLIN: his future conduct. I’m not saying that. I’m saying that
He has already shown that he -- and he’s
already Tweeted and blogged that in the last couple of weeks that as soon as this case is dismissed by you, that he’s going to come out again after me on his blogs. The only thing that’s stopped him is this peace That’s it. Once the judge issued the final peace order The Tweets stopped. All
in this case, the harassment stopped. that stuff stopped, you know.
I haven’t had to worry about my
kids reading about me online from something that happened 34 years ago. I have a right to be a human being. THE COURT: I couldn’t prohibit that even if that
-- even if you had gone to court, filed a
cc 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 petition, and said in your petition that the respondent is saying things about you online and exposing your history online.
Even if you had said those things, I don’t know that this statute would permit this Court to find that to be clear and convincing evidence of violation of the statute. MR. KIMBERLIN: You know, I’m saying that this shows I feel a threat from him. I
his future, possible future.
personally feel that threat everyday.
I’ve got my kids and
wife, you know, looking out for him everyday, whether they’re going to see Virginia license plates show up, you know. He
talks about, on his blog, his Second Amendment rights, you know, and how he’ll invoke them, and how he carries a weapon, and all this stuff. inciting people. He’s got people that comment on his blog that talk about, you know, coming and killing me and stuff like that. And this is what I worry about, him inciting somebody by talking about something that happened 34, 40 years ago, you know, and blaming me just like his lawyer did for outing him, you know, when he had -- it was his blog. It wasn’t my blog. didn’t publish anything. about him ever. So this is what I’m worried about. He published all these things. I This is what I worry about. And him
I’ve never published one single word
cc 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 have that. JUDGE’S RULING I have no doubt what you’re worried about and I
understand your concern, but you sound like a very intelligent person. You do understand that the Court must follow the law
and that if any of these things that are prohibited by this statute, not in your language, not in your interpretation of them, but what this book says, any of those things, obviously are prohibited, any of the things that the statute says. A petitioner may seek relief under this subtitle by filing with the Court or with the commissioner, under the circumstances specified in this subtitle, a petition that alleges the commission of any of the following acts against the petitioner by the respondent, if the act occurred within 30 days before the filing of the petition. An act that causes serious bodily harm. We don’t
That’s the reason why, on cross, Mr. Bours very
carefully questioned you as regards where his client’s hands were, what he did with his hands, and so forth. have an act that caused serious bodily harm. Number two, an act that places the petitioner in fear of imminent serious bodily harm. We don’t have that. We don’t So we don’t
have anything that occurred on January 9th that placed him in fear of imminent serious bodily harm. What, in fact, was done
is that, for the record, I’ll say a camera device or a device capable of taking a photograph was snatched away from the
cc 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 forth. petitioner. Three, an assault in any degree. Now let me just
say, parenthetically, that I’ll come back to the assault, because technically snatching your iPad out of your hand is an assault. I’ll come back to that. So that did occur.
I’m not going to address rape, sexual offense, and so There’s clearly no evidence of that and it’s not
present here. False imprisonment. leaving a place. Stalking. Following a person one time out of a You weren’t prohibited from
building or out of a room certainly doesn’t constitute stalking. If it did, we would need a whole docket to deal with Stalking is more than that. Stalking is a
nothing but that.
persistent pattern of conduct which involves following someone or showing up where they are for no apparent reason other than the fact that that person is present. Trespass. public place. So we don’t have that.
The encounter, as it were, occurred in a
A courthouse is a public place. Well, the iPad
Malicious destruction of property.
wasn’t slammed to the floor, or like the fellow did down in Alabama, there was no bullet fired through a computer or anything. It was just taken from the respondent and given back
to its rightful owner, the petitioner, here in the court. The contents of the petition shall be under oath and
cc 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 they shall allege that some of that conduct that I just read occurred. What occurred?
An item was snatched from your hands.
If this was an assault trial, perhaps the evidence would be sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt, without addressing possible defenses, that an assault did occur. Obviously That
wrestling something from somebody, he assaulted you. occurred. He did. He assaulted you. He also hit me. Assume arguendo that that
MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT:
occurred, but your own testimony would suggest that that touching, you said with the hand, or a thumb, or some part of his hand, you don’t remember exactly which, but that happened in the course of this what I would refer to was a melee, which he was attempting to take your iPad from you. So that evidence
is clear and convincing, but the Court needs to find more than that. The Court needs to find that there’s evidence that he’s going to do this again. a crystal ball. Well, first of all, we don’t have There’s no evidence to suggest The evidence that you
We don’t know.
that he’s going to do this again.
testified about and that you argued that the respondent did may be annoying. Some of it may even violate other statutes that I’m not suggesting that they do, We’ve
are not before this Court.
but the law cannot prohibit all annoying conduct.
cc 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 is.
92 reached a point in this society where people think they have a right not to be offended. Where did that come from? You read
about it everyday in the paper.
Somebody is offended by Where did that come
something and wants somebody to apologize. from?
Where is the right not to be offended? So there’s a lot of annoying conduct that perhaps
might be rude and would cause Emily Post to turn over in her grave. I don’t know if she’s still alive or not, but
manners -- and just for the record, I am not suggesting that the respondent doesn’t have proper manners or anything like that. But what I am saying are examples of annoying conduct,
things that people can do that are just annoying. This Court doesn’t blog. I don’t even know what it
I wouldn’t know how to set-up one and I don’t know if I’ve
even read one since I don’t know what it is, but I can imagine it is a medium in which published material can be made available to the public. I can imagine that a blog might be
likened to a magazine except that it’s electronic and it’s not on paper, unless of course it’s printed out. You say that things have been written about you that are not right. It is a dangerous, dangerous argument to make
that a sanction should be entered against people when they choose to exercise their First Amendment constitutional rights just because it’s annoying. Now let me say, parenthetically, there are civil
cc 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
93 remedies available if someone defames someone, however, truth is a defense. So if a person says somebody has a record and, in fact, they do have a record, you’ll have a hard time getting a judgment in a libel or slander case. If someone said someone
had a record for something that, in fact, they didn’t do that was, in fact, false and it caused the individual harm, then they perhaps would have a cause of action. So the bottom line is this. The advice that was
given to you or the suggestion that was made to you, if it were -- it probably wasn’t advice -- that if you felt that these things which occurred to you was conduct by the respondent from which you could be protected by a peace order, you should go to court, that was proper. There was nothing wrong with you filing a petition for a peace order. There was nothing wrong with you coming to It was
court to tell a court what occurred and seek a remedy. nothing with that. There was nothing wrong with your
attempting to link this conduct, which you believed would come under the statute, to your evidence why you should get a peace order. Nothing wrong with that at all. Nothing wrong with it.
In fact, it would be foolish had you come to court and not attempted those things. come within the statute. Assume arguendo, for purposes of this ruling, that The only problem with it is it doesn’t
cc 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 here. everything you said is true. statute. So.
94 It doesn’t come within the
By the Court saying the peace order should be denied,
the Court is not finding in any way that the conduct that you allege occurred did not occur. Don’t have to reach that.
Don’t have to go to the blogs, and to the Tweets, and to all of that. Don’t have to consider it at all because it’s not
prohibited by the statute. It’s just not. If it were, maybe we wouldn’t even be
If it were, maybe he would have consented to the I don’t know.
issuance of a peace order.
By the way, I didn’t ask you if your client consented because I think I knew the answer. So I’m taking this time, sir, to explain these things to you to perhaps help you in any future decision that you make with respect to how you believe you’ve been aggrieved. I don’t
want you to leave court with the notion that the Court doesn’t find it credible or any of those things. It’s not that at all.
It’s just that what I just read to you is what I have to find. One of the factors that the Court could find existed for you to get a peace order is the assault. The problem with
that is there is not one scintilla of evidence that that will occur again. In fact, but for the fact that you had the
camera, it’s not a camera but an iPad with a camera, but for the fact that you had that, the assault may not have happened at all.
cc 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 So unless there’s an attempt to take his picture, hypothetically, when he walks out of this courtroom, which I
don’t think is going to occur -- well, he’s going to walk out of the courtroom. taking a picture. again. I think this respondent, and I haven’t heard from him, but I think he, like you, probably would have rather been some place else today doing something else, and I’m sure he probably would have also. You’ve spent a day away from your I don’t mean that not occur, but I mean There’s no evidence that he’s going to do it
office, away from doing what you were doing, for legitimate reasons. This is the way we want people to settle disputes. We want them to present their
We want them to come into court. case, but that’s not all.
We also want you to understand the
Court’s ruling, both of you, and to live by it. You came to court seeking relief because you believed the evidence was sufficient to grant it and now after a full blown hearing and explanation, perhaps ad nauseam, you should now understand why this case, these facts, do not entitle a person to the issuance of a peace order. It is in that category of situations that I often tell people, not just you and not just the respondent in this case, is that the Court cannot grant a remedy to individuals who are subjected to every kind of annoying conduct there is that people could do. We just can’t.
cc 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 law is attempting to do it. The peace order
statute has only been around a short period of time. Legislature came up with this peace order and we have a tremendous amount of litigation, tremendous amount, with these statutes because people read them the way you do, that if you’re annoyed and if a person does something that you believe is harassing, that you can get a peace order. You probably
know now more about the peace order statute than you ever wanted to know about it or care about it, but going forward, I hope it places you in a better position. I hope it places the respondent in a better position also, because he also now knows the kind of conduct, if you engage in it, could land you in court at a hearing like this. So I think I’ve taken the time to answer some of the things I’ve said to you were because of things that you testified to which gave me a clue, more than a clue, of how you believe this statute works and I wanted you to go away with the full understanding of how the statute works, and that the Court is not sanctioning anything that happened here, but it just doesn’t come under the parameters that the legislature has set for issuance of a peace order, and for very good reasons. All right, gentlemen. give both of you a copy of this. thank all three of you. Give them a copy. Thank you very much. I’ll
I said thank you both, but
cc 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. BOURS:
97 Judge, I haven’t made up my mind if I’m
going to, but I want to put the petitioner on notice that we may ask that the record in this case be sealed, because we are concerned that a purpose behind a lot of what Mr. Kimberlin has done is to identify my client. If he’s going to do it by So
referring to court files, we may want this record sealed. I’m giving him notice now.
And I will also say this, that if we file a request to seal, we have to send him a copy and I’ll send it at the address he gave in his testimony. THE COURT: could be located? MR. BOURS: That’s right. That’s fine. I appreciate that. That was why the questions about where he
I would note that Mr. Walker has filed a lawsuit against me that says exactly the same stuff. If he wants to
dismiss that lawsuit, I will voluntarily agree to seal this record right now. (The proceedings were concluded.)
Digitally signed by Michele R. Collyer 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. 8444D BRETT KIMBERLIN v. AARON WALKER
__________________ Michele R. Collyer Transcriber
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.