Reply to Opp to MFL

8/13/2019 Reply to Opp to MFL

1/24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

GREENBELT DIVISION

BRETT KIMBERLIN,

Plaintiff

v. Case No. PWG 13-3059

NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, et al.,

Defendants

DEFENDANTWALKERSREPLYTOPLAINTIFFSOPPOSITIONTOWALKERS

MOTIONFORLEAVETOEXCEEDPAGELIMITANDMOTIONTOSTRIKE

COMES NOW Defendant Aaron J. Walker, Esq., and files this reply to the Plaintiffs Response

in Opposition to Defendant Walkers Motion to Exceed Limit and to Strike and states the following:

1. On February 3, 2014, Mr. Walker filed three documents: a reply to the Plaintiffsopposition to Mr. Walkers motion to dismiss (Reply, ECF No. 55); a motion to strike all of the

Plaintiffs oppositions to the motions to dismiss (Mot. to Strike Opps., ECF No. 54); and a motion for

leave to exceed the page limit set for replies (Walker MFL, ECF No. 53).

2. On February 10, 2014, this court issued an order granting leave to exceed the page limitset for replies, holding that in light of the complex issues in this case and the relatively minor degree by

which the filing in question exceeds the page limit, that the request to exceed the page limit is

reasonable[.] Order of Feb. 10, 2014, ECF No. 60. However, recognizing that the Plaintiff had not had

a chance to file any opposition, this Court also stated this Order is subject to reconsideration in the


2/24

2

event that Plaintiff should file an opposition within fourteen days of this Order. Id.

3. On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed such an opposition (Pls Opp. to MFL, ECFNo. 61) that also doubled as an opposition to Mr. Walkers Mot. to Strike Opps.

I.

THE PLAINTIFF OFFERS NO LEGAL REASON TO OVERTURN THIS COURTS ORDER

GRANTING LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS

4. The Plaintiff offers absolutely no rebuttal to the actual reasoning of this courts ordergranting leave to exceed the page limitations on replies. In fact, it is hard to imagine any reasonable

person disputing the key facts this court relied on, namely: 1) that this is a complex case, and 2) that the

proposed filing does not exceed the page limit by much.

5. Instead, the Plaintiff seems scandalized that Mr. Walker would even ask for such adeviation while filing a motion that so deviates, writing:

Defendant Walker admits that his [Reply] violates Local Rule 105.3, which limits aReply [sic] to 25 pages. Yet he asks to violate that Rule in essence to respond to Plaintiffs

Responses to other Defendants Motions to Dismiss.

This court doesnt need to be told that the rule specifically allows for such a deviation by court order.

6. The Plaintiff also complains that the Reply responds not only to his opposition to Hogeand Walkers motion to dismiss (Opp. to H&W, ECF No. 29), but also to his oppositions to DB

Capital Strategies and the Franklin Centers respective motions to dismiss (Opp. to DBCS, ECF No

30 and Opp. to TFC, ECF No. 31 respectively). However, he does not dispute that all three

documents make claims that involve Mr. Walker. As stated in the Walker MFL 8:

the Plaintiff has made it clear that these oppositions are not to be considered in isolation.

Instead he incorporates arguments from one opposition to another. See, e.g. Opp. to TFC

9, Opp. to DBCS 28 and Opp. to H&W 23-24. Even if he did not do so, many ofthe arguments and improper factual allegations he makes for the first time in his Opp. to

TFC and Opp. to DBCS, are likely to have an impact on the consideration of Mr.

Walkers Motion to Dismiss. Therefore effectively Mr. Walker must respond to all three


3/24

3

Oppositions.

For example, in Amend. Compl. 76 (ECF No. 2) the Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Walker was a participant

in DBCS alleged extortion attempt. Thus, when the Plaintiff continues to accuse DBCS of attempted

extortion in the Opp. to DBCS, he is also accusing Mr. Walker, justifying a response. It was the

Plaintiff who wove his arguments and allegations against Mr. Walker throughout all three oppositions

He cannot in good faith complain that Mr. Walker is responding to those arguments and allegations,

wherever they may be found.

7. Furthermore, Mr. Walker has an interest in seeing all federal claims dismissed as to allDefendants. As he stated in his Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendan

Walkers Motion to Dismiss (Walker Memorandum, ECF No. 11) p. 32 n. 11:

Defendant Walker has standing to challenge this and every cause of action based on

federal law, even where his own conduct is not at issue, because this court can only have

jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs state law claims by virtue of supplemental jurisdictionunder 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). Therefore Defendant Walker has a valid interest in seeing all

federal claims dismissed as to all Defendants, so that all state claims against Mr. Walker

might be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is impossible because Mr. Hoge and the Plaintiff are both domiciled

in Maryland.

8. The Plaintiff also falsely claims that the Mot. to Strike Opps. just continues on wherehis Reply left off. It does no such thing. It is designed to address the fact that the Plaintiff improperly

made dozens of new allegations in his oppositions and an additional document, that he failed to properly

affirm a declaration, and his continued defiance of this courts order to obey Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). The

Mot. to Strike Opps. also demonstrated the Plaintiffs bad faith in this lawsuit in order to counter any

suggestion that the Plaintiff should be allowed to effectively amend his complaint with the new

allegations in his oppositions. While a few minor points in the Reply rely on arguments made in the


4/24

4

Mot. to Strike Opps.such as pointing out when the Plaintiff misrepresents the contents of his own

exhibitsthe Mot. to Strike Opps. is its own document designed to accomplish its own purposes.

II.

MR. WALKER IS NOT ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT ANYONE BUT HIMSELF

9. Mr. Walker is an attorney admitted and in good standing in Virginia and the District ofColumbia. He is not a Maryland lawyer. He has never pretended to be a Maryland lawyer, and he has

never pretended to represent anyone but himself in a Maryland court as he has a right to do.1

10. The Plaintiffs overwrought accusation that Mr. Walker is attempting to represent otherparties in this case stems from the fact that 1) the Reply addresses allegations that affect Mr. Walkers

interests in the Plaintiffs Opps. to DBCS and TFC, and 2) the Reply recommended relief would also

benefit other Defendants.

1The Plaintiff speciouslyalbeit creativelyclaims that Mr. Walker has no right to represent himself

in this case based on a tortured reading of D. Md. local rule 101.1(a) which states that:

Except as otherwise provided... only members of the Bar of this Court may appear as

counsel in civil cases. Individuals who are parties in civil cases may only represent

themselves... All parties other than individuals must be represented by counsel.

(emphasis added). The Plaintiff believes that somehow because Mr. Walker is an attorney in other

jurisdictions he has ceased to be an individual, who is specifically authorized to represent him or

herself by this rule and by 28 U.S.C. 1654. However, the term individual is ordinarily understood in

the law as referring to a natural person, as opposed to an artificial person such as a corporation. See, e.g

In re Oliver L. North, 12 F.3d 252 (D.C. Cir., 1994) (holding that the term individual is ordinarily

understood as referring to natural persons). Contrary to what a million lawyer jokes might make one

think, Mr. Walker and the distinguished judges of this court did not cease to be natural persons when

they were admitted to the bar. The real purpose of the word individual in that rule is to limit the righ

of self-representation to natural personsas opposed to legal entitiesand, thus, make it clear that such

entities are required to obtain counsel. Mr. Walker has as much right to represent himself as the

Plaintiff, and the fact that Mr. Walker knows how to do so professionally is an asset and not a detriment.


5/24

5

11. In regard to the first argument, as stated in paragraph 6 above, the Plaintiff chose toweave allegations that affect Mr. Walker into all three oppositions. Further, as stated in paragraph 7

above, Mr. Walker has an interest in seeing all federal claims against all Defendants be dismissed, even

if his personal behavior is not implicated. For that reason, Mr. Walker is not purporting to represen

other Defendants interests in answering those oppositions so much as advocating for his own interests.

12. In regard to the second argument, the Plaintiff specifically complains in paragraph 10 thatMr. Walker repeatedly asks the Court to dismiss the complaint for all parties. Reply at 1 and 31. In

both cases, the complained-about passages are not citing the interests of the other parties, but this courts

own interest in judicial economy. Not only is this permissible, but the Plaintiff has made arguments

based on the same interest in paragraph 4 of his Motion For Extension of Time in Which to Respond to

Pending Motions by Defendants (ECF No. 18). Thus, the Plaintiffs claim that Mr. Walker is

attempting to represent other parties is frivolous and, indeed, hypocritical.

III.

THE PLAINTIFF IMPROPERLY PLEADS NEW ALLEGATIONS AND THEREFORE THOSENEW ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE DISREGARDED

13. In claiming that the Mot. to Strike Opps. and Reply are filed for an improper purposethe Plaintiff again alleges a fresh array of false and conclusory allegations. The Plaintiff seems to think

that in consideration of a motion to strike or a motion for leave to exceed page limitations, like in a

motion to dismiss, all well-pled allegations made by the Plaintiff must be assumed to be true. This is not

the case.

14. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c) this court can only rely on evidence that is on the record, oron affidavits, oral testimony or depositions in deciding either motion. The bare, conclusory allegations

of a proven liar are not sufficient. The Pls Opp. to MFL is not even a verified pleading, and, even if i


6/24

6

were, the Plaintiffs history of bald-faced lying undermines any credibility he might have.

15. This is, arguably, grounds to strike the Pls Opp. to MFL, but since the new allegationsare largely confined to one section (Defendant Walkers Pleadings Are Done [sic] For an Improper

Purpose), this court can simply disregard paragraphs 12-15 of the Pls Opp. to MFL (and any other new

allegations), except to the extent that they demonstrate the Plaintiffs bad faith.

IV.

THE PLAINTIFF OFFERS ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL REASON TO DENY THE MOTION

TO STRIKE

16. Once again, it is worth taking a moment to review the points that Plaintiff has not evencontested.

17. The Plaintiff does not deny that the Declaration filed as Exhibit F to the Opp. to DBCS isimproper because the affirmation does not include the phrase under penalty of perjury and should

therefore be stricken. This is not merely a technical deficiency. Rather, as explained inIn re McGuire

these words ensure that the declarant makes the statement with full cognizance of the consequences of

lying: if an unsworn declaration is used, it must be under penalty of perjury, so the seriousness of the

statements will be made evident to the witness. 450 BR 68, 71 (BC DC NJ 2011).

18. The Plaintiff doesnt deny that he had improperly attempted to amend his complaintthrough his oppositions, and his Notification of Related Court Ruling (Notification, ECF No. 32)

and, therefore, they should be stricken. The Plaintiff merely claims that Mr. Walker cannot raise tha

concern in relation to the Opps. to DBCS or TFC. Thus, he offers absolutely no defense to his improper

conduct in the Opp. to H&W and the Notification, and no substantive defense related to his improper

conduct in relation the Opps. to DBCS or TFC. That failure counsels in favor of striking all four

documents.


7/24

7

19. The Plaintiff doesnt dispute the legal argument that a plaintiff should not be granted anamendment when the party seeking amendment has engaged in bad faith, as indeed he cannot.

20. Further, the Plaintiff doesnt dispute that he has actually shown bad faith. At best, heclaims in paragraph 14 of Pls Opp. to MFL that Defendant Walker has used his latest pleadings to

make more defamatory allegations against Plaintiff in order to whip up his readers to engage in vigilante

action against Plaintiff. Besides the obvious fact that nothing Mr. Walker has submitted to this court

approaches the legal standard for incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (the

government cannot forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where

such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or

produce such action), the Plaintiff makes no attempt to specify whatprecisely is allegedly untrue in Mr

Walkers filings.

21. A brief review of the examples of the Plaintiffs bad faith, as cited in the Mot. to StrikeOpps., shows that most of these instances are irrefutable. The Mot. to Strike Opps. stated that the

Plaintiff: 1) attempted to convince the non-party Twitchy that it was a party, including the forgery of a

summons; 2) presented another apparently forged document purporting to represent refused service on

Defendant McCain; 3) has repeatedly failed to serve parties as required, or failed to serve them properly

and on a timely basis; 4) misstated the contents of his own exhibits three times; 5) misstated his criminal

record; 6) misstated the contents of Mr. Walkers and Mr. Hoges respective motions to dismiss; 7)

falsely claimed he never had a million dollar judgment against him; 8) falsely claimed he never sued a

conservative blogger, and then in the same sentence admitted to suing a conservative blogger; 9) falsely

claimed that Mr. Walker lost two attempts to have him declared a public figure; 10) falsely claimed a

quote from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals came from the Maryland Court of Appeals; 11)


8/24

8

falsely claimed that a dissent in the Supreme Court was the opinion of the Court; 12) falsely claimed that

Mr. Frey accused Mr. Kimberlin of SWATting; 13) misrepresented the contents of Mr. Freys alleged

conversation with Mr. Brown; 14) misstated the contents of Mrs. Malkins and Mr. McCains websites

and 15) even lied about his own complaint.

22. The Plaintiff makes no effort to explain which, if any, of those points are false. Indeedhe doesnt even offer an innocent explanation for this constant stream of easily proven falsehoods. He

simply claims that the filings contained unspecified defamation.

23. Indeed, not only has the Plaintiff failed to offer any more than a mere hand-wavingrebuttal on these points, but the Plaintiff has amazingly engaged in further bad faith in the instant filing

as will be shown in paragraphs 25-52.

24. Finally, the Plaintiff does not deny that he ignored this courts warning in its Letter Orderof January 7, 2014 (ECF No. 26) that Plaintiff is cautioned to comply with the requirements of Rule

11(a) and to include his address, email address, and telephone number on all future filings

demonstrating again how little regard the Plaintiff has for this court or its rules. This provides an

additional reason to strike the oppositions and the Notification in toto.

V.

THE PLAINTIFF HAS DEMONSTRATED BAD FAITH HIS LATEST FILING BY TELLING

ADDITIONAL LIES AND BY ATTEMPTING TO APPEAL TO DISABILITY BIGOTRY

25. Faced with allegations that he has acted in bad faith, the Plaintiff has remarkablyprovided this court with fresh examples of his bad faith in Pls Opp. to MFL, demonstrated in two ways

First, as in Pls Opp. to MFL, the Plaintiff has misled this courtindeed he has often told lies very

similar to those pointed out in the Mot. to Strike Opps. Second, the Plaintiff has engaged in a new form

of bad faith, by attempting to sway this court with vile bigotry against the disabled. These further


9/24

9

examples of bad faith bolster every argument in every filing (past or present) in which the Plaintiffs bad

faith can be a factor. These new examples of bad faith strengthen the argument in the Reply tha

dismissal should be granted with prejudice, the argument in the Mot. to Strike Opps. that the Plaintiffs

oppositions and Notification should not be treated as proper amendments to the complaint, and the

argument against allowing the Plaintiff to add Twitchy as a party in Mr. Walkers Opposition to the

Plaintiffs Motion to Correct Complaint Caption and Motion to Strike Same filed this same day.

A. The Plaintiff has Demonstrated Bad Faith by Repeated Falsehoods.

26. The Plaintiff has demonstrated bad faith by making the following false claims:(1) The Plaintiff Misstates His Criminal Record (Again).

27. The Mot. to Strike Opps. excoriated the Plaintiff for falsely claiming he had committedonly one crime, pointing out that, conservatively speaking, the Plaintiff had actually been convicted of

over 32 crimes. See Mot. to Strike Opps. p. 5. One might think that the Plaintiff, having lost face for

such a brazen and foolhardy lie, would apologize to the court for attempting to mislead it.

28. Rather than apologizing and repenting of his deceit, the Plaintiff has done it again. InPls Opp. to MFL 13 the Plaintiff incredibly claims that he has only had a single conviction, writing:

Defendant Walker acts as though Plaintiff must wear a Scarlett [sic] Letter on his

forehead for life and must be attacked mercilessly until he is imprisoned, ostracized orkilled. That Scarlett [sic] Letter is dated 1979 and before in the form of a convictionand

prison sentence.

Putting aside the Plaintiffs Passion play and his false allegations about Mr. Walkers state of mind,

this court knows by now that the Plaintiff has been convicted a minimum of 32 times.2 Once again, one

2 Previously, this same Plaintiff was specifically told by a federal court that he had more than one

conviction even before he committed the crimes in the 1979 spree that included the Speedway

Bombings. In Kimberlin v. White, 798 F.Supp. 472 (W.D. Tenn., 1992), he challenged the parole


10/24

10

wonders precisely who the Plaintiff expected to fool.3

(2) The Plaintiff Misstates His Criminal Record (a Third Time).

29. However, this was not the only deception in that passage; he also claimed that he served asingle sentence (That Scarlett [sic] Letter is dated 1979 and before in the form of a... prison sentence)

Even if one pretends that his thirty sentences (for his thirty convictions in the crime spree of 1979 that

included the Speedway Bombings) being served concurrently count as a single sentence, the Plaintiff

previously served time for his perjury conviction.

30. Indeed, the Plaintiff has admitted it under oath. On April 11, 2012, a hearing was held inMontgomery County Circuit Court on the first unsuccessful peace order the Plaintiff filed against Mr.

Walker.4 On cross examination, Mr. Walkers attorney asked the Plaintiff about his criminal record

resulting in this exchange:

Q But you were convicted?

A [Kimberlin] Of what?

Q Perjury in connection with that and you served time in jail on that, didnt you?

A Yeah.

commissions finding in relation to when he would be eligible for parole for his convictions related to

that spree. In that case he argued that the juvenile decision on the drug charge and the later perjury

conviction are related and therefore should only be counted as one conviction. Id. at 482. However

the court rejected this claim, stating that these two prior convictions were counted separately for

purposes of determining when he might be paroled for his crime spree in 1979.3The fact that the Plaintiff feels a compulsive need to dishonestly minimize his criminal history amounts

to a silent confession that his proven criminal conduct rendered him odious, infamous and/or

frightening, Amend. Compl. 181, long before the Defendants wrote a single word about him

bolstering arguments that the Plaintiff is defamation proof, Walker Memorandum pp. 42-454Kimberlin v. Walker (I)(Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2012) case number 8444D.


11/24

11

Q As an adult.

A Eighteen days.

Exhibit A, p. 74, lines 10-16. Therefore, the Plaintiffs claim to have only served one sentence is false.

(3) The Plaintiff Falsely Claims Mr. Walker Has Never Won A Motion Against the Plaintiff.

31. In paragraph 15 of Pls Opp. to MFL, the Plaintiff states thatEvery legal pleading that Defendant Walker has filed against Plaintiff over the past 26months has been denied, dismissed, nolle prossed, or ignored by a dozen judges,

prosecutors and other law enforcement officials.

Putting aside the utter irrelevancy of that statement, it is also false to suggest that every pleading has

been denied, dismissed, or ignored when, in fact, many of Mr. Walkers motions have been granted.

32. For instance, in Kimberlin v. Allen,5Mr. Walker was required to intervene to protect hisown interests. At the time, Mr. Walker was an anonymous writer on the Internet, and Mr. Kimberlin

filed abusive subpoenas seeking to obtain Mr. Walkers identity. Through an attorney, Mr. Walker filed

(as John Doe) a Motion to File Anonymously or Under Seal. If one examines the publicly available

computer records6for that file, one sees this entry on the docket where that motion was granted:

5(Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2011) case number 339254V.

6All of these records are publicly available on the internet at http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry

/inquiry-index.jsp and this court is invited to check for itself. However, the simpler method to find this

site is to Google the phrase Maryland judiciary case search. It will be one of the first results.


12/24

12

33. Meanwhile, as noted in Walkers Mot. to Require Verification (ECF No. 9) 18-19, thePlaintiff learned of Mr. Walkers identity by other means and attempted to place a great deal of personal

information about Mr. Walker in his motion to withdraw his subpoenas. Mr. Walker appeared in court

on the next business day and orally moved that the Plaintiffs document be placed under seal. The

motion was immediately granted as indicated by this docket entry:

34. After that document was sealed, the Plaintiff filed a motion to unseal the same documentIncredibly, the Plaintiff placed much of the very same information that had been sealed in that motion to

unseal, forcing Mr. Walker to file a motion to place the Plaintiffs motion to unseal itself under seal

That motion was immediately granted sub silentio as indicated by these docket entries:

As this court can see, docket number 127, the Plaintiffs motion to unseal, was placed under seal. This


13/24

13

occurred after Mr. Walkers emergency motion at docket number 128.

35. Meanwhile, what is not obvious in that image taken from the docket is that the Plaintiffhad originally put some of that sealed information in the very title of his motion to unseal so that it

would appear in this docket to anyone who accessed it via the Internet. Thus, as part of the emergency

motion to seal the Plaintiffs motion to unseal, Mr. Walker asked that the docket entry be changed to

remove that information. That request was also immediately granted sub silentio.

36. Then, in true absurdity, the Plaintiff filed a response to Mr. Walkers John Doeemergency motion to place the Plaintiffs motion to unseal under seal, that also included information

that had been sealed. This led to Mr. Walker having to file a motion to put that filing under seal, a

motion that was granted immediately, resulting in the following docket entry:

While this whole sequence was absurd, it was the direct result of the Plaintiffs complete lack of respect

for the Circuit Courts ruling on January 9, 2012. That court had stated that the information would be

put under seal. The Plaintiff then filed for a motion to unseal that included the same information in the

title of the motion, requiring the court to seal his motion to unseal and to change the title of the motion


14/24

14

in the docket entry. Even then, the Plaintiff still didnt take the hint, filing a third document containing

the same information. This is a further example of the Plaintiffs history of bad faith.

37. Mr. Walker asks this courts indulgence with one more example. After the Plaintiffsfirst peace order against Walker was dismissed on appeal, the Plaintiff filed a second peace order in

Montgomery County District Court7on the theory that writing negative things about the Plaintiff was

automatically equivalent to incitement against hima theory he has repeatedly floated in the instant

case. Shockingly, Judge Vaughey accepted the Plaintiffs theory in this exchange:

Q [The Court] So you get some -- and I'm going to use the word freak somewhere

out in Oklahoma got nothing better to do with his time, so he does the nastiestthings in the world he can to this poor gentleman [Kimberlin]. What right has that

guy got to do it?

A [Mr. Walker] He has no right to do that, but Your Honor

Q Because you incited him.

A. But Your Honor, I did not incite him within the Brandenburg standard.

Q Well, forget Brandenburg. Let's go by Vaughey right now, and common sense

out in the world.

Exhibit B, p. 55, lines 6-16. Thus, in ignoring the Supreme Courts precedent inBrandenburg v. Ohio

by name, Judge Vaughey forbade Mr. Walker from writing about the same Plaintiff, however

peacefully, to a general audience, for six months.

38. It should not surprise this court that this flagrantly unconstitutional ruling did not stand.Mr. Walker filed for a motion to partially stay the peace order pending appeal,

8seeking a restoration of

7Kimberlin v. Walker (II)(Md. Mont. Co. Dist. Ct. 2012) case number 0601SP019792012.

8The appeal to the Montgomery County Circuit Court can be cited as Kimberlin v. Walker (II) (Md


15/24

15

his freedom of expression. That motion was granted in this docket entry:

This is another example of Mr. Walker filing a motion with a court which was not denied, dismissed or

ignored by the judge,9but Mr. Walker also highlights this example for another reason: as this court can

see, the motion giving Mr. Walker back his precious freedom of expression was granted on June 25,

2012. That was the same day that he was SWATted.

(4) The Plaintiff Misstates the Contents of His Own Exhibit (Again).

39. In paragraph 14 of Pls Opp. to MFL, the Plaintiff states (falsely) that Mr. Walker filedMont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2012) case number 8526D.9 The Plaintiff also believes it was criminal that Defendants Walker, Hoge, Frey and Stranahan

condemned Judge Vaughey online[.] Amend. Compl. 56. First, upon information and belief, these

persons condemned Vaugheys flagrantly unconstitutional rulingand not the judge personally. Second

by pointedly citing Brandenburg in granting his partial stay of the peace order, it is reasonable to

interpret Judge Rupps order as condemning Vaugheys ruling as well. As respected attorney and

colorful legal commenter Ken White wrote upon reading Rupps order and its reference toBrandenburg

[t]hat, boys and girls, is what lawyers refer to as a benchslap. Ken White, Oh, Oh, Right. THAT

Brandenburg, POPEHAT, June 25, 2012 (available at http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/25/oh-oh-right-

that-brandenburg/) visited February 12, 2014. This entire episode, ranging from when Plaintiff fastened

upon Mr. Walker an unconstitutional prior restraint, as well the Plaintiffs attempt in this court to

criminalize criticism of that ruling, demonstrates how little respect the Plaintiff has for the First

Amendment.


16/24

16

these pleadings so he could publish yet more articles on his blog accusing Plaintiff of more imagined

crimes. See Exhibit A, entitled, Convicted Document-Forger Brett Kimberlins Fraud On The Court,

dated February 6, 2014. However, contrary to his statement, the exhibit he cites does not say what he

claims it says. As the exhibit itself says, This will be the first in a series where I present to you various

filings that have occurred in this case, in this case by Michelle Malkin and the non-party Twitchy. The

exhibitwhich is not a true and correct copy of what Mr. Walker wrote, anywaydoes not include a

copy of any document Mr. Walker filed with this court and neither did the piece that exhibit was

inaccurately extracted from. Instead, it presented a copy of the motion to dismiss filed by Mrs. Malkin

and the non-party Twitchy.

(5) The Plaintiff Misstates the Contents of His Own Exhibit (Yet Again).

40. In the very next line of paragraph 14 of Pls Opp. to MFL, the Plaintiff writes DefendantWalker asks his readers to get out the popcorn and to send him money so he can rid the world of

Plaintiff once and for all. Id. The Id. refers to the same Exhibit A, which does not contain the words

get out the popcorn. It also contains no request that any person send Mr. Walker money. While there

is a banner at the top of his blog that suggests that readers follow the links on the right side of the blog to

help him, those links lead to a legal defense fund from which Mr. Walker is never personally enriched.

Furthermore, he does not ask that the money be sent to help rid the world of the Plaintiff. Mr. Walker

has never stated any intent to murder the Plaintiff (and if he had, surely the Plaintiff would have

mentioned it before now). The Plaintiffs exhibitwhich again is not a true and correct copy of the

originalbears almost no resemblance to what the Plaintiff says about it.

(6) The Plaintiff Falsely Claims Mr. Walker Stated That He Supports the Harassment of thePlaintiff.

41. During the Passion play in paragraph 13 of Pls Opp. to MFL, the Plaintiff writes:


17/24

17

[a]ccording to Defendant Walker, Plaintiff has no right to live his life without harassment and fear from

reprisals. Any claim that Mr. Walker has stated that the Plaintiff should be harassed is false. He has

never made such a statement, and it is not what he believes. Further, in every single post for over a year

in response to the Plaintiffs ludicrous claims that Mr. Walker was inciting violence against him, Mr.

Walker has included a disclaimer to remove any doubt that he opposes vigilante violence or any other

form of lawlessness directed at the Plaintiff. After telling persons not to contact the Plaintiff by any

means, the disclaimer states: I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become

harassment andI dont want that to happen to him (emphasis added). In short, he has literally said the

opposite of what the Plaintiff claims.

42. Further, any suggestion that Mr. Walker supports or condones vigilantism is false. Hehas never made any such statement and, indeed, also states in his disclaimer that

the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal processsuch as the criminaljustice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of

such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-

productive.

(emphasis removed). So it is misleading to suggest he supports vigilante violence against the Plaintiff.

43. Previously the Mot. to Strike Opps. made the argument that the Plaintiffs continuedfalsehoods, made even when he was certain to be caught, demonstrated his bad faith. Rather than rebu

those allegations with any kind of specificity, or repent of his dishonesty, the Plaintiff has doubled

down, with new allegations that can also be easily proven false. Those cited above are not the only

falsehoods the Plaintiff has written in his Passion play in paragraphs 12-15 of Pls Opp. to MFL or in

the filing as a whole, but they are the most easily proven false. This court should find that the Plaintiff

has acted in bad faith, refuse all attempts to amend his complaint, and grant all dismissals with

prejudice.


18/24

18

44. Remarkably, the Plaintiff has chosen to compound his bad faith by stooping even lower.B. The Plaintiff has Demonstrated Bad Faith By Attempting to Sway This Court with Bigotry

Towards the Disabled.

45. An additional way that the Plaintiff has engaged in bad faith is by a transparent attempt toappeal to this court with bigotry toward the disabled. In paragraph 12, of Pls Opp. to MFL, the Plaintiff

falsely claims that Mr. Walker admittedly suffers from multiple psychiatric handicaps and goes on

falsely to suggest that those alleged handicaps give him an obsessive personality.

46. Mr. Walker does not have a psychiatric handicap or disability as that term is commonlyunderstood. For instance, at Douglas Colleges website, they describe psychiatric disabilities as

involving disturbances in thinking, emotion, and behavior and list as examples depression

schizophrenia, social anxiety, specific phobias, eating disorders, bipolar disorder, panic disorder,

generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorders, and substance abuse.10

Mr. Walker

doesnt have any of these conditions or anything like them.

47. What he does have is what are commonly referred to as Learning Disabilities orLearning Differences. Specifically, Mr. Walker has dyslexia, dysgraphia, and attention deficit

disorder (ADD and sometimes designated ADHD). People with these disabilities have challenges

to overcome just as paraplegics and the blind have challenges to overcome. Some of the challenges are

presented directly by their disabilities and some of the challenges are presented by the prejudice inspired

by those disabilities. However, persons with any of these disabilities are not any more likely to have an

obsessive personality or indeed any other defect of personality than any normal person.

48. As Mr. Walker wrote in a Declaration years ago when seeking an equal opportunity while10

Mental Health/Psychiatric Disabilities (available at http://www.douglas.bc.ca/services/centre-for-

disabilities/documentation/mental.html) visited February 12, 2014.


19/24

19

applying to law school:11

The best way I can explain [what learning disabilities are] is as follows. Our bodies are

essentially machines; we are biological robots. Just like any man-made machine,sometimes these biological machines malfunction. However, a malfunction in one part

does not mean the entire machine is useless and since human beings are infinitely more

valuable than any mere machine, we would want to make the fullest use we can of thosewith these malfunctions. That is, just because a persons eyes dont work, doesnt

mean we shouldnt attempt to offer him or her the opportunity to live a full life. Our

minds are also machines, to a large extentvery much like a sophisticated computer,only I believe we have souls, too. In the mind, we have one part that serves as a reading

machine, another for calculation, another for writing and so on. These mental machines

can malfunction, just as our bodies do; and that is what we call learning disabilities. Itis easy to imagine, in this age of computers, how a couple of crossed wires in the mind

could create the letter switching that dyslexics are famous for. However, just amalfunction in one part of the body does not necessarily mean the whole body is affected,

a malfunction in one part of the brain is not necessarily going to affect any other part, andthus learning disabled people have a great deal to offer, if only given the opportunity to

do so.

Except for the direct effect of those disabilities, people with learning disabilities are just like anyone

else, able to function in society just as successfully as a person with a so-called physical disability. They

are not barred from the legal profession, for instance. As future Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor

wrote [t]here is no insinuation, and I cannot find, that Dr. Bartlett [a dyslexic] is incapable of

performing the functions of a practicing lawyer. Bartlett v. New York State Bd. of Law Examiners, 970

F. Supp. 1094, 1128 (SD N.Y. 1997). That case involved an aspiring attorney who appears to have a

more severe case of dyslexia than Mr. Walker: she can barely read. However, this did not disqualify her

from the legal profession, theBartlettcourt reasoning that

[i]f the bar examination were intended to test a person's visual ability to read or a person'sability to perform under time pressure, there would be no blind attorneys. Thankfully, this

11This was in AJW v. Law School Admission Council (1998) 98-cv-01329-R. Mr. Walker was only

identified as AJW because he did not want to make his disabilities a matter of public record and they

probably would not be today, but for the Plaintiffs relentless efforts to place it in the public record.


20/24

20

is very far from the reality of modern law practice.

Id. at 1130. This squares with Mr. Walkers own experience when he sought admission to the lega

profession. Not only did the bar associations know of his disabilities, but they felt that they were so

irrelevant that they accommodated those disabilities on the bar exam without any difficulty and found

that he possessed the character and fitness necessary to become an attorney.

49. Nor do such disabilities make a person strange or abnormal in most other professionsUpon information and belief, famous dyslexics include Whoopi Goldberg, Mohammed Ali, Leonardo da

Vinci and attorney David Boies.12 Louis Pasteur had dysgraphia, while Albert Einstein, Judge Jeffrey

H. Gallet,13

and even President George Washington, had both dyslexia and dysgraphia. Given that

Thomas Jefferson had dyslexia as well, it can be said that learning disabled persons account for half of

the population of Mr. Rushmore. Business leaders such as Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Frank W

Woolworth have been diagnosed with dyslexia, while JetBlue Airways founder David Neeleman, CEO

of Cisco Systems John T. Chambers, Ikea founder Ingvar Kamprad, Kinkos founder Paul Orfalea have

dyslexia andADD/ADHD.14

These corporations are not run by lunatics. Chances are this court has had

12Mr. Boies is most famous for representing Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). Mr. Boies

and Mr. Walker were both interviewed as examples of successful dyslexics by Dr. Sally Shaywitz

M.D., for a book called Overcoming Dyslexia: A New and Complete Science-Based Program for

Reading Problems at Any Level designed in significant part to try to change public perceptions of

learning disabled persons (2005). Then a law student, Mr. Walker appears in that book under the

fictitious name Hannah and other details are changed in an attempt to protect his anonymity, but

nonetheless, this Professor of Neurology considered Mr. Walker to be a positive example of a person

with dyslexia to hold up to the public.13

Wolfgang Saxon, Obituary: J.H. Gallet, 58, Federal Judge Who Transcended Disabilities, Is Dead,

NEW YORK TIMES,April 27, 2001.14

The list of persons cited as having these disabilities is gathered from the following sources visited on

February 13, 2014: Famous People with ADHD, ADULT ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER CENTER OF


21/24

21

attorneys with one of more of these disabilities appear before it, although it might not have been aware

at the time. Indeed, there is hardly a person alive who has no one in their circle of friends, relatives and

respected acquaintances that doesnt include at least one person who has some form of learning

disability or ADD. They are not emotional lepers or pariahs. They are perfectly ordinary people who

simply have challenges to overcome.

50. Indeed, at the risk of bragging, Mr. Walkers own life is a testament to his strength andstability of character. When he entered high school, he was met with severe discrimination because o

his disabilities: both passive discrimination in the form of teachers refusing his requests for reasonable

accommodation and active discrimination by singling him out for different treatment from the other

students. Looking ahead, Mr. Walker decided there would be no way that he could make it through

college and he dropped out before his senior year.

51. This was undoubtedly a low point in his life. But he did not turn to drugs to escape hisproblems or turn to criminality to earn the money he felt was due. Unlike the Plaintiff, who never

faced any difficulty that he was not personally the author of, Mr. Walker did not engage in self-

MARYLAND (available at http://www.addadult.com/index.php/add-education-center/famous-people-

with-adhd); Brittany Shoot, Famous People With ADHD and Learning Disabilities, ADDITUDE

(available at http://www.additudemag.com/adhd/article/8681.html); Dysgraphia and Organization

DYSGRAPHIA.ORG.UK (available at http://dysgraphia.org.uk/index.php/dysgraphia-and-memory)

Famous People with the Gift of Dyslexia, DYSLEXIA THE GIFT (available at

http://www.dyslexia.com/famous.htm) and Successful People with Dyslexia, THE MENTIS FOUNDATION

(available at http://www.mentisfoundation.org/node/8). Additional famous dyslexics include Harry

Belafonte, Jay Leno, John Lennon, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Nolan Ryan, Andrew

Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Henry Ford, Charles Schwab, Richard Branson, Ted Turner, Scott Adams,

Agatha Christie, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and William Butler Yeats. Famous persons with ADD/ADHD

include Howie Mandel, Salma Hayek, Justin Timberlake, Woody Harrelson, Terry Bradshaw, and James

Carville.


22/24

22

destructive behavior. Instead, a few years later when Mr. Walker began seeing changes in attitudes

about disabled persons, he tried to obtain an education again, and, for the first time in his life, was

provided a fair chance.15

He got his high school equivalency diploma (commonly called a GED) on

the first try and without taking any additional courses. Then, he enrolled at the University of North

Texas. Four years later, Mr. Walker graduated summa cum laude. With a high LSAT score, he was

admitted into Yale Law School where he excelled, winning the respect of luminaries such as Second

Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi and former Senator Gary Hart. But he is most proud of the fact that he is

probably the only person to ever hold both a GED and a juris doctorate from Yale Law School. The

point of this story is not, however, to brag about all that Mr. Walker has overcome, but to make the

simple point that, rather than having disturbances in thinking, emotion, and behavior as the Plaintiff

attempted to suggest, Mr. Walker has shown a strength and stability of character that far outstrips the

decidedly poor character of the Plaintiff.

52. The Plaintiffs attempt to depict Mr. Walker as having what is more commonly thoughtof as a mental illness

16 is simply a new version of the old stereotype that being crippled was an

outward sign of inner deformity.17

The Plaintiffs false portrayal of Mr. Walker as having psychiatric

15He dropped out of high school shortly before the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 42 U.S.C

12101 et seq.went into effect.16

Falsely accusing a person of having a mental illness is a common tactic of the Plaintiff. Twice when

his wife attempted to leave him, upon information and belief, the Plaintiff filed papers claiming she was

mentally ill and seeking to have her involuntarily committed as an intimidation tactic. Both petitions

were found to be without merit and she has indeed been given a clean bill of mental health.17

Aaron J. Walker, No Distinction Would Be Tolerated: Thaddeus Stevens, Disability, and the

Original Intent of the Equal Protection Clause, 19 YALE L. & POLY REV. 265, 276 (2000) (quoting

Ralph Korngold, THADDEUS STEVENS: A BEING DARKLY WISE AND RUDELY GREAT 34 (1955)). See

also Paula Berg, Ill/Legal: Interrogating the Meaning and Function of the Category of Disability in


23/24

23

handicaps is a futile attempt to inflame anti-disability bigotry in this court. Lawyers often say that if

the law is against you, pound the facts; if the facts are against you, pound the law; and if both are against

you, pound the table. Historically pounding the table has unfortunately included pounding bigotry

of various forms: he must be guilty because he is black, she must be lying about being raped because

she is a loose woman, or they were justified in killing him because he was gay. Mr. Kimberlins

grubby and obvious attempt to pound the table with bigotry is another example of the Plaintiffs bad

faith. One can never appeal to bigotry in good faithin a court of law or anywhere else.

53. Accordingly, this court should find that the Plaintiff has acted in bad faith, because of hisdeceit and his transparent attempt to sway this court with disability-based bigotry. Accordingly, every

attempt to amend his complaint should be denied, and every claim that is dismissed, should be dismissed

with prejudice, because of that bad faith.

CONCLUSION

In relation to his opposition to granting leave to exceed the page limitation on replies, the

Plaintiff has offered nothing to rebut the central logic of this courts ruling: that this case is complex

and the deviation is slight. In relation to his opposition to both motions, the Plaintiff frivolously claims

that Mr. Walker is attempting to represent other parties when in fact he is advancing his own interests

and this courts interest in the efficient administration of justice. In relation to his new allegations tha

Mr. Walker has an improper purpose in filing his motions, since these allegations are not supported by

the record of this case or any testimony, declaration or affidavit, this court should simply disregard

Antidiscrimination Law, 18YALE L.&POLY REV.1, 5-6 (1999) (discussing prejudicial attitudes toward

disabled persons in history). Cf.Fred Pelka, THE ABC-CLIO COMPANION TO THE DISABILITY RIGHTS

MOVEMENT200 (1997) ([in movies] disabled characters [are often] portrayed as embittered by their

disability, even setting out to wreak vengeance on the nondisabled world).


24/24

24

them. Likewise, the Plaintiff has only offered a general and vague denial to the numerous documented

instances of the Plaintiffs bad faith, while offering this court further examples of his bad faith, even

making a disgusting attempt to inflame bigotry against Mr. Walker based on the disabilities he has

overcome.

Accordingly, this court should not reconsider its order granting the Walker MFL, this court

should grant his Mot. to Strike Opps., and it should grant his Motion to Dismiss with prejudice because

of the bad faith that the Plaintiff has demonstrated and that dismissal should be granted for all other

Defendants in the name of judicial economy, and any other relief that this court deems just and

equitable.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

Aaron J. Walker, Esq.[personal information, verification page and exhibits

omitted]

Reply to Opp to MFL

Documents