Judge George Hazel 6500 Cherrywood Lane Gerenbelt, MD 20770 April 1, 2015 Re: Kimberlin v. NBC, GJH 13-3059, Response to Backer/DBS Letter Request Dear Judge Hazel: Please take this letter as a response to Defendants Dan Backer and DB Capitol Strategies' request to file a motion for attorney fees and sanctions. The request is without merit, contrary to law and is barred by res judicata. These defendants have repeatedly requested and been denied the same type of sanctions they are now requesting. They represented Defendant Aaron Walker in two patently frivolous suits against me, one in this Court before Judge Motz, and the other in the Prince William Virginia County Circuit Court before Judge Potter. In the federal case, they asked that I be found to be a vexatious litigant and that I be denied the right to file any further lawsuits without permission from the federal court This despite the fact that at that time I had only filed one suit in the previous decade and it resulted in a judgment in my favor. What these defendants wanted from the federal suit was for Judge Motz to find that the state of Maryland courts were not capable of handling their own affairs because they ruled in my favor. Judge Motz found that the request was far outside the authority of the federal courts. See attached order. In the state case, Judge Potter found specifically that the case was brought in bad faith and for an "improper purpose." See attached. In that case, with virtually every motion filed by these defendants, they requested sanctions in the tens of thousands of dollars simply for me responding to the motions. Judge Potter denied every single such request by these defendants. In the instant case, this Court has found that my 1983 claim against Mr. Frey has merit and should proceed. It found that I have made viable state law claims and allowed me to refile those claims in state court which I will do before April 15, 2015. The Court did not find that those claims were without merit or frivolous, or that I was vexatious. With regard to the RICO and 1985 claims, the Court simply found that I did not plead the necessary elements of the claims. These Defendants are attemptiing to use a sanctions motion/order to undermine the Court's order allowing me to refile the state law claims in state court They are attempting to deny me my statutory and First Amendment rights to seek redress for wrongdoing. To accept the defendants' argument that the mere filing of mutiple suits or the dismsisal of some counts is grounds for sanctions would put most lawyers out of business, including legal advocacy organizations such as the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, Southern Poverty Law Center, Public Citizen Litigation Group, and Judicial Watch. Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 274 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 2
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Judge George Hazel6500 Cherrywood LaneGerenbelt, MD 20770
April 1, 2015
Re: Kimberlin v. NBC,GJH 13-3059, Response to Backer/DBS Letter Request
Dear Judge Hazel:
Please take this letter as a response to Defendants Dan Backer and DBCapitolStrategies' request to file a motion for attorney fees and sanctions. The request iswithout merit, contrary to law and is barred by res judicata.
These defendants have repeatedly requested and been denied the same type ofsanctions they are now requesting. They represented Defendant Aaron Walker intwo patently frivolous suits against me, one in this Court before Judge Motz, and theother in the Prince William Virginia County Circuit Court before Judge Potter. In thefederal case, they asked that I be found to be a vexatious litigant and that I be deniedthe right to file any further lawsuits without permission from the federal court Thisdespite the fact that at that time I had only filed one suit in the previous decade andit resulted in a judgment in my favor. What these defendants wanted from thefederal suit was for Judge Motz to find that the state of Maryland courts were notcapable of handling their own affairs because they ruled in my favor. Judge Motzfound that the request was far outside the authority of the federal courts. Seeattached order.
In the state case, Judge Potter found specifically that the case was brought in badfaith and for an "improper purpose." See attached. In that case, with virtually everymotion filed by these defendants, they requested sanctions in the tens of thousandsof dollars simply for me responding to the motions. Judge Potter denied everysingle such request by these defendants.
In the instant case, this Court has found that my 1983 claim against Mr. Frey hasmerit and should proceed. It found that I have made viable state law claims andallowed me to refile those claims in state court which I will do before April 15, 2015.The Court did not find that those claims were without merit or frivolous, or that Iwas vexatious. With regard to the RICO and 1985 claims, the Court simply foundthat I did not plead the necessary elements of the claims.
These Defendants are attemptiing to use a sanctions motion/order to underminethe Court's order allowing me to refile the state law claims in state court They areattempting to deny me my statutory and First Amendment rights to seek redress forwrongdoing. To accept the defendants' argument that the mere filing of mutiplesuits or the dismsisal of some counts is grounds for sanctions would put mostlawyers out of business, including legal advocacy organizations such as the ACLU,Center for Constitutional Rights, Southern Poverty Law Center, Public CitizenLitigation Group, and Judicial Watch.
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 274 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 2
As far as attorney's fees, the defendants are not entitled to them. First, thesedefendants were represented by their own firm. Second, they cannot be consideredprevailing parties since most of the claims against them are going to be heard instate court. Third, I am a pro se litigant who is the victim of the tortious conduct ofthe defendants. Fourth, it was the defendants' own misconduct of filing improperlawsuits against me that led to the legal claims against them. In fact, since I couldnot file for legal fees after prevailing in those two suits, my only recourse forrecovery was in the civil court arena. Fifth, they used those malicious suits to dosomething unprecedented -launch a website and raise tens of thousands of dollarsbased on the false narrative that I swatted conservative bloggers. They pocketedthat money, yet they now want to ask this Court to further pervert justice byimposing tens of thousands more in legal fees against me for seeking justice andredress.
Finally, last week, when I asked these defendants if they were interested inresolving this case prior to me re-filing the state law claims in state court, theyresponded by saying that I would have to pay them $25,000 or they would file forsanctions and fees in excess of $50,000.
For all these reasons, this Court should deny these defendants request to file for feesand sanctions.
Bre K" berlin8100 Beech Tree RdBethesda, MD20817
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 274 Filed 04/06/15 Page 2 of 2
PAR T I A L
V I R GIN I A
T RAN S C RIP T
1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
x
AARON J. WALKER,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Defendant.
x
Case No. CL12-631-00
Circuit Courtroom 4Prince William County Courthouse
Manassas, Virginia
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
The above-entitled matter carneon to be heard
before the HONORABLE RICHARD B. POTTER, Judge, in and for
the Circuit Court of Prince William County, in the
Courthouse, Manassas, Virginia, beginning at 11:15 o'clock
a.m.
R E E N & K E R N SCERTFIBJ 'wffiBATIM REPORTERS
4116lEONARD DRIVEFAIRFAX. VIRGINIA 22COO
(700) 9:11.3136
R E p o R T
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 274-1 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 12
APPEARANCES:
On Behalf of the Plaintiff:
DAN BACKER, ESQUIRE
On Behalf of the Defendant:
(Pro Sel
2
R E E N & K E R N SceRTFlB)\I1:RBATIM REPORTER&
41181.£ONARD DRIVEFNRFM V1RGI\IlAzmo
(703) :B1-3138
R E p o R T
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 274-1 Filed 04/06/15 Page 2 of 12
1 EXT R ACT o F PRO C E E DIN G S
3
2 *
3 *
4 *
5 (The Court Reporter was previously sworn by
6 the Clerk of the Court.)
7 THE COURT: We're back on the record.
8 The Plaintiff has brought a complaint against
9 the Defendant Kimberlin, and two other Defendants who are
10 not before the Court today personally.
11 Their complaint contains thirty-two counts of
12 which fourteen involve the Defendant Kimberlin. Counts