IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------x : BRETT KIMBERLIN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : AARON WALKER, : : Defendant. : : ------------------------------x

Civil No. 8444D

TRIAL

Rockville, Maryland

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

------------------------------x
BRETT KIMBERLIN, Plaintiff,
v.

Civil No. 8444D

AARON WALKER, Defendant.

------------------------------x

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

RECROSS

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

Judge's Ruling

89

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 thats in here is a witness. I dont know if the young The gentleman on the far

left of the courtroom is not a witness. THE COURT: Are you a witness, maam? No.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: THE COURT: MR. BOURS: Okay.

Fine.

I just wouldnt 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 Im 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.

Ill hear you and then Ill 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 Rupps court, called the sheriff. Nine deputies showed He did assault

up and they advised me that they could not arrest Mr. Walker because they didnt see the assault, advised me to go to the commissioners 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 States

Attorneys 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 didnt even get past the screeners at the States Attorneys 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. Hes 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 dont tweet, but he has tweeted He has posted on his own

scores of posts about me on Twitter.

blog that Im 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. Im 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. Ive gotten death threats because of his actions.

Ive been called terrible names and its a continuing process of harassment, and he has attempted to destroy and besmirch my reputation. Im a father. Im a husband and Im 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

Justice Through

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 -- hes 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 dont like what he says about insulting them, to come to his home in Manassas, Virginia, where hell 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 hell

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 Ive been harassed. Ive 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 Ive got it. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Youve got it. Okay.

Let me hear from Mr. Bours. All right.

MR. KIMBERLIN:

OPENING STATEMENT BY REGINALD W. BOURS, III, ESQ. ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Your Honor, from my perspective, what were 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 Ill 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. Were here de novo so Im not going to say that Mr. Kimberlin cant bring up anything at all. that up to the Court to decide. Im going to leave

But what is absolutely wrong

with the District Courts finding is that harassment is defined under the criminal laws of the State, and Ill argue this later. I have the statutes here with me. Youll find that

nothing that Mr. Kimberlin actually testifies about, even if you accept his testimony, constitutes harassment under the criminal statute and if it doesnt, then a judge cant order a peace order based on that. So thats just the starting point.

Let me tell you that my client is a practicing Hes 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 Its a political type of site and it basically talks I think,

about politics, all kinds of different issues.

indirectly, thats how he came to Mr. Kimberlins attention. What is really in the background of this case is Mr. Kimberlin was convicted of a number of things that he hasnt 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. Kimberlins 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

11

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 whats 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. Thats 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 theres 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 thats 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 hes told you about this Muslim Web site and everything else, theres maybe a grain of truth to it, but what youll 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 clients home because of the litigation in which he was identified and actually cause him harm. Thats 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 wasnt 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 isnt 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

13

appropriate proceeding in which to order a peace order against Mr. Walker and I think youll 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 dont think he appreciates being Yeah. Ill call Sergeant Sherman, I Thats fine. You call witnesses in the

Its 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, youre 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, Im familiar with an

14

incident report No. 12 -- Im sorry, an incident report dated January 9, 2012, that was filed by deputies in the Montgomery County Sheriffs 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

15

doesnt fall within any -- well, I havent read it, so I dont know, but presumably, it doesnt fall within any exception to the hearsay rule and would not be admittable here in Circuit Court. At any rate, police reports and the sheriffs

department is a law enforcement agency, police department. Those reports are not admissible. MR. KIMBERLIN: So youre saying the police report is

not admissible because the person that wrote it is not here? Is that what youre saying? THE COURT: Im saying that it is hearsay. It

doesnt 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 Id 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 its 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 wont rule on the admittance or not of those things, and he doesnt need to stay. Are you following me, sir? MR. KIMBERLIN: question then? THE COURT: Sure. But Im 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 wont be whether it comes in through him. Hell 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 Sheriffs Office does keep some In the current technology, they are not

video recordings.

tapes but theyre hard drives. Q A Okay. But the Sheriffs 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

17

Are you familiar with a video that was taken of the

incident of January 9th? A Im not personally familiar with it. Im 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 States 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 doesnt worry about what the You call your own plays. You dont try the case to If

other side is going to object to. they object, thats 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 thats 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 Sheriffs 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 cant -So you cant -computer. THE COURT: You dont have a disc? I dont have a disc. discovery or pursuant to an information request to yourself. I was not there for the incident. incident occur.

18

I didnt 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 dont 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:

Im going to object again. Have the item marked. I mean its on a video. Its on a

MR. KIMBERLIN:

MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: take your computer? MR. KIMBERLIN:

How would I receive it into evidence,

Well, I mean you can see it.

You can

MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT:

You dont 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.

19

Then it wont 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

didnt bring the disc because Ive had it on my computer.

downloaded it on my computer because I didnt think you would be able -- its 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 -- Id like to --

If you have photographs, thats -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?

Sure.

BY MR. KIMBERLIN: Im going to hand you three photographs and -THE COURT: Let Mr. Bours see them. Okay.

MR. KIMBERLIN:

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 Ill receive the pictures. Q BY MR. KIMBERLIN: Im going to hand you three photographs here.

20

If you

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 Sheriffs 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

Sheriffs 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 dont 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

MR. KIMBERLIN:

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, Ill 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. Theres 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 cant identify who the people are. I dont --

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 cant 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 Im 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 cant

22

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 Hes not in the first two. The one taken at 11:45:02

a.m., may be a picture of him. across the lobby.

Its taken from quite a ways

Its what I would say is a rear profile Its kind of back

picture, so you know, its 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 weve been talking about, the full Yes. Was his report submitted to the States Attorneys

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 States Attorneys office? A Yes. To my knowledge, the DVD video, the incident

report from the Sheriffs 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 Im 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? Hes, I think, on the eastern shore of Maryland at a

training program.

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 hes not available to testify today? No, sir. Were you in the courtroom when he testified in

24

District Court? A Yes, sir. MR. BOURS: Judge, Ill just proffer so that we dont I do have a disc and I can have

have to fence around about it. it marked.

Its currently in the only computer I could get it But

to work on and Im reluctant to take it out and ruin that. Id 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 dont plug

Okay.

But you might want to take a look

at what it is hes showing. MR. KIMBERLIN: BY MR. BOURS: Tell me about the system that these photographs are I assume its the same thing. Yeah.

taken with or these videos are taken with. A Theres 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 Im not exactly sure

about the electronics, but there is a rack in the Sheriffs 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, its 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 theres 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 its every sixteenth of a second that it -I dont 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 wont be like a high definition movie that you would watch on your cable tv where its 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 Theres a wire or a Q

26 The thing that is recording it is on a, Ill 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 its 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 thats displayed

on the picture itself, I wouldnt know what the time frame, date of it is or the time frame. Its self authenticating in

the sense that the frames have a date indication that I would presume is correct. Q Just so you dont have to come back, Im going to

start this real quick because it doesnt 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 thats outside this courtroom. BY MR. BOURS: This would be the disk that was submitted to the

States Attorneys 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 Im used to seeing from the Vicon system. myself. I didnt make the disk

I dont know whether the States Attorney gave you the

original disk that the Sheriffs office provided to them, or whether they duplicated it, or what not, but the imagery seems to be consistent with what Im used to seeing on Vicon. Q watch it? A Again, theres not any way I could tell whether its I dont 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 Id like to see if you can say who they are and if Jim Johnson was one of them, according to one of the photographs thats 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.

28

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 theres Kim Meronawitz (phonetic sp.).

I think there may be -THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Let me see. I think Jimmy Johnson is one of them.

Hes the shorter one with short blonde hair. BY MR. BOURS: Im going to show you a package that appears to come

from the States Attorney from Montgomery County regarding discovery and just ask this one question. The first document Is that a true

that Im pulling out here is a two-page report. and accurate copy of Deputy Johnsons report? A Q Yes, sir.

Is that report kept in the ordinary course of

business of the Sheriffs office regarding any incidents that occur in the courthouse? A Yes, sir. MR. BOURS: May we have this marked as Respondents

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 Defendants 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,

theres a section of injuries under the name Brett Kimberlin. Injuries. Q It says unknown. Would it have been at least part of the sheriffs

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 theres 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 dont specifically remember that. MR. BOURS: Respondents No. 1. THE COURT: Any objection? No objection. Your Honor, Im going to offer

MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT:

Ill 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 States Attorneys office individual photographs taken from the video? Was that part of what you

all submitted to the States Attorneys office? A To my knowledge, the Sheriffs 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: Im sorry. Q Im going to hand that to you and just ask if you

31

could look at each one and tell me whether thats the format in which Deputy Johnson would have submitted photographs from the video. In other words, if, are these Sheriffs department

productions, as it were? A Those appear to be consistent with printouts from the

Sheriffs office Vicon video system. MR. BOURS: Im going to ask that the Clerk staple --

I didnt mean to ignore you, Mr. Kimberlin, if

youd like to look at them. MR. KIMBERLIN: MR. BOURS: No objection.

Id like to have these marked,

collectively, as Respondents No. 2, then you can staple them further if youd like, and offer them. objection. THE COURT: All right. Ill receive it. I think theres 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 Theyre 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, its

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.

32

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. Kimberlins direct, youre 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. Im going to show you Respondents Exhibit No. 3 for This is a copy, I believe, of the Maryland

identification.

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 wouldnt know whether or not he had any permission to do anything. MR. BOURS: I offer Respondents 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: Ill receive it. No objection. (The document marked for

33

MR. KIMBERLIN:

identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 3 was received in evidence.)

investigated an iPad or some form of tablet computer in Mr. Kimberlins possession for whether it had a photograph on it? A Im 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 didnt see any indication in the report of damage. MR. BOURS: THE COURT: Thats all the questions I have. Any other questions, sir? No further questions.

MR. KIMBERLIN:

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.

34

Would you like your computer back? MR. BOURS: Yes. I think well plug it in and use it

Yes, sir.

MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT:

I would like to be my own witness. You can come up, please. You can

Okay.

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 dont know yet. Are

Well, it might be better to just testify

from there because I dont 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. Thats 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 dont have a problem with it. THE COURT: but as for now. For cross, hell 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

35

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.

didnt 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 dont have to

If you were in the witness stand, you wouldnt 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, thats 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, youre 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 its a pretty obvious reason why thats in the statute, so that we dont 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 youre 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 cant

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. Im 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 wouldnt

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 doesnt matter whether you had a history with him A peace order

or whether you didnt have a history with him. would be appropriate.

So its 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 dont do that in your testimony.

If you want to talk about it in closing argument or something, fine, but Im not going to have you just correct Mr. Bours. You dont have to do that. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Okay. What he said wasnt evidence. What Mr.

Bours said and what you said in your opening statements, thats not evidence. going to show. Thats 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 Jordans 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 cant consider what you read. These Web. MR. BOURS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Object. Sustained. Thats hearsay.

39

I went online and saw Mr. Walkers

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 its admissible in court. It couldnt 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 cant

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

40

testifies, then Ill ask him if he wrote these. THE COURT: to try the case. THE WITNESS: Thats the only way I can get it in. Thats up to you. I cant 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. Allens 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 thats conclusory, too. I mean

he can provide evidence of that, but I dont see that hes 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 Im 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: Its his blog. He owns the blog. THE WITNESS: Its his blog. I mean he admitted that he did it. But he was writing all

41

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 wasnt 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

He

Its his blog. I dont think youre 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 Rupps court, he It says, I respond to Brett Kimberlins motion Thats what he said. Thats --

posted online. and subpoenas.

THE COURT:

So if I write online I, Mr. Kimberlin,

whom Im 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 Im 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 dont 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 dont 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 States

of prosecutors needs more evidence than that.

Attorney cant 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. Youre 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 dont even have to read whats

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 dont have to read whats online.

43

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 whats 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 hes 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 theres a post, or e-mails, or anything else. Hes got to show whats in that article. Its

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. cant be just something thats 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 thats 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.

44

Thats the reason that the legislature said, Look, if youre 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: Lets talk about it. All right. Did he do any of that? Yes, he did. Okay. Well, lets 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. Thats 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 spectators 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 --

45

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: Dont 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. Ill sustain that. He can object to

46

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. Ill say what I

going to continue harassing me. THE COURT: Well, I dont think he said he was going He didnt speak in those terms. Quote him.

to continue harassing you. What did he say? THE WITNESS: Then as we -THE COURT:

Thats what I recall.

Youre not understanding me.

Mr. Walker

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.

47

Im 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. Walkers 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 commissioners office and get a -press assault charges and to get a peace order against Mr. Walker. Thats 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. Whats the basis of that? It sounds like hes trying to give a There are proper ways to do that. But I

think all hes 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 dont get

damages in a peace order. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Im not asking for damages right now. But go ahead. Im 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 cant 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: Youre going to sustain the objection

I was --

I have a picture that I took.

Heres 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, Ill receive it. And I would like to show how it

illegal, but if you want to offer that up, Ill receive it. THE WITNESS: Yeah. Id 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.)

50

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 hasnt offered them yet. Okay. Id 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: Plaintiffs 4 is a picture of Mr.

51

Walkers hand coming towards my face. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: What is No. 5? Its 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. Youre

testifying now, so have a seat. Ill reserve on that. What else happened on that day? THE WITNESS: So on that day, thats 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. Its 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.

52

That has nothing to do

Mr. Ralhousers case has nothing to do with this

house to serve Mr. Ralhouser. MR. BOURS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Object. Well -Thats harassment. I mean its

your house, but you cant 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 isnt

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.

53

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 wont be drawing objections. THE WITNESS: against me in Virginia. MR. BOURS: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: against you. Object. Heres a copy. I have no doubt that he filed a lawsuit Mr. Walker filed a $66,000,000 lawsuit

Theres a lawsuit -Im saying -Youre being sued in Virginia. I mean

THE WITNESS: THE COURT:

what does that have to do with this case? THE WITNESS: Well, its retaliation. Its just

because I filed a peace order against him. charges against him. its about.

I filed criminal Thats what

This is all retaliation.

So thats 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.

54

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. Thats 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 thats what you went to court for? THE WITNESS: Ive proven that. Yeah. And thats -- 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 dont 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 youre limited Thats all the Court

Thats what you filed in court.

can consider is what happened on that day and thats 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 dont allege it. Its not there.

Its a trial de novo, but its not a trial de novo to go back and bring up all the things that are not in the complaint, that you didnt file. Its a trial de novo on the case below. You

cant 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 wouldnt 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 didnt argue, or didnt articulate, or didnt point out to the court in trial below, but you dont 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:

56

Well, I would like to point out since

youve 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 didnt call

Someone else called the police to come up. Object to that. Ill 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. Theyre being watched all the

They dont need to be called. time -THE WITNESS: THE COURT: right there. Right.

-- and there are cameras.

Theres one

If I were to start flipping out on the bench, the So maybe they

sheriffs would be here in just a few minutes.

didnt need to be called, but its lunch time, gentlemen. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Oh boy. So why dont we take a break, have lunch,

come back, and well 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.

57

mean, Mr. Bours, you can leave anything in the courtroom that you want to leave. MR. BOURS: Judge, what Im going to do is Im going

to leave with the clerk just so I wont 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. Its 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. Thats a MacBook. The MacBook is actually like a laptop

58

A MacBook.

computer, is that correct? A Q A Q A Q Yes, sir. Its 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 its 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 cant -- I couldnt 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.

59

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 Its just one button. Just one button.

Are you talking like an icon that you push and it

activates the camera? A I believe so. Its -- the camera is actually a part

of the iPad and so if you just hold the iPad up, and you dont 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 its 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 -- its kind of to sleep when its 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,

didnt 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

61

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 didnt want to take up the Courts time with a motion that was basically moot. Q

62

But in the motion you filed to withdraw, you put all

that information in your motion, didnt you? A Not all of it. I have a lot more information that I

didnt 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 Thats what you say your motive was, but, in fact,

that put it in a public record, is that correct? A Q Well, its 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 didnt make it -- I

didnt go public with it. Q

I havent 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 Its a she. Worthing. Okay. Through Beth Kingsley, a motion had been filed Kingsley is a she. Lets 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.

court processes.

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. Thats 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

64

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, didnt you? A taken -Q Well, you did try to take a photograph with your Thats not the series of events. I would not have

photograph. Q A Q Its 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 Im 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

cc
1

65

told them that I had taken a picture, and -Q Let's stop here because
I

want to focus on something.

3 4
5 6

January 9th is the first day you ever saw this gentleman to my left in person, is that correct?
A

Yes. You had never seen a picture of him, had you, on his

7
8
9

blog or anywhere else?

A

No.

You've never seen him in any other public place, but

10 11 12 13 14
15

a courthouse, have you? A Q

No.

Since January 9th, the only times you've ever seen

him have been in connection with court proceedings either you or he filed, correct?
A

Yes. Based on what you found out about him December 31st,

16
17
18

you understand he lives in Manassas, Virginia?

A

Yes, sir. Just state for the record your home address, where

19 20 21
22

you actually live. A

I

live in Bethesda.

Q
A

Would you give us the address?

23 24
25

1111111111111111111111.,

Bethesda, Maryland.

Q
A

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? Its in Cabin John, Maryland. In Cabin John and not Washington, D.C.? No. Well, when you asked for protection through this

66

peace order, you left it open that he couldnt 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, youve 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. Hes done a lot of blogging about me. Im talking about in person.

No, sir. No.

He followed me out of that courtroom. You dont claim any other

But thats the only time.

time that he has followed you in a public place, correct? A Well, I dont know. I really dont 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

67

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 dont I just know that he has bullied me. Hes harassed me Hes called me

Hes written terrible things about me.

terrible names. Q Well, the terrible things hes 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, Im not human filth. Im a husband. Im the director of a nonprofit. Thats what he called Im

Im a human being. me online.

Im 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 Thats what you believe based on things you cant

68

authenticate, correct? A Okay. When he gets on -- when he gets on the stand,

well find out, okay. Q Sir, what Im 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 didnt 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 hes wrestling me for the iPad and he actually took the iPad away from me. And I didnt 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 didnt 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.

70

He hit you? Well, his hand hit me. His hand hit me. Whether it

was his fingers or his hand like this, I dont know, but I -Q A Are you claiming that he hit you with his fist? No. I dont know if it was -- I cant say it was a

I can say it was a hand. Isnt it really a fact that he was just holding up

his hand so you couldnt 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

Thats not a fact? Thats not a fact at all. I mean I --

Now youve apparently watched the video? Yes. Do you claim the video supports what youve just told

Lets 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 thats what you would have to do because

they didnt 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 hes got my iPad, and can you arrest him for assault. And they said, well, we didnt see it. arrest him for assault right now. commissioners office. I said, well, wheres the commissioners office. And they said, its across the street at the District We cant

Youll have to go to the

But they didnt 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 thats the only recourse you had? Yeah. Because they couldnt arrest him because they Thats what they said.

didnt see it. Q

So when you went to the commissioners 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

72

charges at the same time? A I believe so. MR. BOURS: Courts indulgence.

BY MR. BOURS: This is going to be Respondents Exhibit No. 4 for For explanation purposes, its a certified

identification.

court record of the District Court of Maryland. (The document referred to was marked as Defendants 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

73

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, wasnt it, Mr.

a conspiracy to distribute 10,000 pounds of marijuana, right? A No. That wasnt 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.

74

Nineteen.

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, didnt 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

75

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 Youre getting into nuances. Well, its not a nuance that your parole was revoked

because you didnt, is that correct? A Q A Q Not exactly, but again -You filed appeals in connection with that, correct? Yes. Ill 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 wasnt 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, Im going to offer Respondents

76

MR. BOURS: Exhibit No. 4.

Could I explain that I dont know it happened,

but when District Court put together this certification, they included somebody elses case. THE COURT: MR. BOURS: It happens. Dont know how, but this is all part of

one certification and thats 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 Thats true. You say thats true and thats 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 Defendants'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 States 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 theres a peace order, that they didnt 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 youre understanding is you never saw the line Q question. A Q Okay. All right. I want to show you an exhibit. Theres no pending

78

Defendants Exhibit No. 6, a certified copy.

Did you

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. Ill show you what is marked Defendants 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 youre saying you never saw No. 6? I dont 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

Kimberlins Motion in Opposition to States 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, Id like to offer 6 and 7, if I

79

MR. BOURS:

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 theres -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 didnt want them to drop the Thats 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 victims advocate. I talked at long length with the

victims advocate and she suggested that I file that motion. Q A Q She? Whats her name?

Donna Becker (phonetic sp.). She told you could file an opposition in the court

Sir, isnt 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 States Attorney called me up

and had a long talk with me. Q A Q A Excuse me. Could you answer my question?

Thats totally false. You are putting these things in public records -Thats 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.

81

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 -Theres 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, Id 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 thats 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. Hes 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 didnt want me taking a picture, he

could have stopped right there and said, Im going to go tell the court personnel that Mr. Kimberlin took a picture or whatever. THE COURT: Hold on a second. Youre into argument

Have you rested your case? No. The other thing that Mr. --

MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT:

Youre giving factual testimony. Okay. Im just trying to respond to

MR. KIMBERLIN: something that he said. THE COURT:

I was trying to --

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 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, Ill consider this

Allens 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 couldnt find him. He professed to be an attorney. I didnt 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 thats 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 Im being accused of. have never published his name in any way, shape, or form. dont blog myself. blogs myself. right. THE COURT: All right. I dont Tweet myself. I I Thats a simple

I dont 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.

84

Is the petition addressed? Im 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. Theres a part of this, I

assume, that hes just completely unaware and theres 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 its 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 dont think you should find, ultimately, that theres clear and convincing evidence that any act, including assault, has occurred. Certainly, theres no proof of The statute

Its 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. Theres just no testimony at all This is

and without that, the Court cant 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. Theres certainly no support for harassment. Its

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).

Im sorry.

This is very different from protective orders in a family case. case. I mean you dont 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 dont need to go any further. THE COURT: Have you rested? You werent calling any

other witnesses, correct? MR. KIMBERLIN: No. Ive rested, but Id 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 cant 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 Ill 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. Thats all Ive ever asked of him is to just But he didnt. He filed a criminal charge

leave me alone. against me.

He filed a $66,000,000 -Objection. Thats not in evidence.

MR. BOURS:

MR. KIMBERLIN: Youre saying -THE COURT:

Youre talking about the future.

No objection.

This is argument.

MR. KIMBERLIN:

But hes talking about the future, Its already occurred, you know.

whether its 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 were 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. Im not saying that. Im saying that

He has already shown that he -- and hes

already Tweeted and blogged that in the last couple of weeks that as soon as this case is dismissed by you, that hes going to come out again after me on his blogs. The only thing thats stopped him is this peace Thats 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 havent 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 couldnt 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.

88

Even if you had said those things, I dont 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, Im saying that this shows I feel a threat from him. I

his future, possible future.

personally feel that threat everyday.

Ive got my kids and

wife, you know, looking out for him everyday, whether theyre going to see Virginia license plates show up, you know. He

talks about, on his blog, his Second Amendment rights, you know, and how hell invoke them, and how he carries a weapon, and all this stuff. inciting people. Hes 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 wasnt my blog. didnt publish anything. about him ever. So this is what Im worried about. He published all these things. I This is what I worry about. And him

Ive 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. JUDGES RULING I have no doubt what youre worried about and I

89

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 dont

Thats the reason why, on cross, Mr. Bours very

carefully questioned you as regards where his clients 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 dont have that. We dont So we dont

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, Ill 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

90

say, parenthetically, that Ill come back to the assault, because technically snatching your iPad out of your hand is an assault. Ill come back to that. So that did occur.

Im not going to address rape, sexual offense, and so Theres clearly no evidence of that and its not

present here. False imprisonment. leaving a place. Stalking. Following a person one time out of a You werent prohibited from

building or out of a room certainly doesnt 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 dont have that.

The encounter, as it were, occurred in a

A courthouse is a public place. Well, the iPad

Malicious destruction of property.

wasnt 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?

91

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:

Okay.

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 dont 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 theres evidence that hes going to do this again. a crystal ball. Well, first of all, we dont have Theres no evidence to suggest The evidence that you

We dont know.

that hes 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 Im not suggesting that they do, Weve

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 theres a lot of annoying conduct that perhaps

might be rude and would cause Emily Post to turn over in her grave. I dont know if shes still alive or not, but

manners -- and just for the record, I am not suggesting that the respondent doesnt 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 doesnt blog. I dont even know what it

I wouldnt know how to set-up one and I dont know if Ive

even read one since I dont 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 its electronic and its not on paper, unless of course its 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 its 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, youll 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 didnt 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 wasnt 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 doesnt

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 doesnt 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. Dont have to reach that.

Dont have to go to the blogs, and to the Tweets, and to all of that. Dont have to consider it at all because its not

prohibited by the statute. Its just not. If it were, maybe we wouldnt even be

If it were, maybe he would have consented to the I dont know.

issuance of a peace order.

By the way, I didnt ask you if your client consented because I think I knew the answer. So Im 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 youve been aggrieved. I dont

want you to leave court with the notion that the Court doesnt find it credible or any of those things. Its not that at all.

Its 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, its 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 theres an attempt to take his picture, hypothetically, when he walks out of this courtroom, which I

95

dont think is going to occur -- well, hes going to walk out of the courtroom. taking a picture. again. I think this respondent, and I havent heard from him, but I think he, like you, probably would have rather been some place else today doing something else, and Im sure he probably would have also. Youve spent a day away from your I dont mean that not occur, but I mean Theres no evidence that hes 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 thats not all.

We also want you to understand the

Courts 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 cant.

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

96

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 youre 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 Ive taken the time to answer some of the things Ive 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 doesnt 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. Ill

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 havent made up my mind if Im

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 hes going to do it by So

referring to court files, we may want this record sealed. Im 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 Ill send it at the address he gave in his testimony. THE COURT: could be located? MR. BOURS: Thats right. Thats fine. I appreciate that. That was why the questions about where he

MR. KIMBERLIN:

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.)

cc

98

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

By:

__________________ Michele R. Collyer Transcriber