IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND BRETT KIMBERLIN, Petitioner v. AARON WALKER, Respondent Case No. 8526D EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PARTIAL STAY OR MODIFICATION OF THE DISTRICT COURT PEACE ORDER PENDING APPEAL Respondent, Aaron J Walker, by REGINALD W. BOURS, III, PC, and pursuant to Maryland Rule 7-112(c), respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue an immediate order modifying or staying enforcement of a peace order issued by the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County [Vaughey, J .. ] on or about May 29, 2012, pending a final hearing now scheduled in this court for July 5,2012, and in support of this request, states as follows: 1. The subject peace order is attached as an exhibit to this motion, and on its face prohibits "electronic contact" by Respondent with Petitioner.. However, in its oral ruling issued May 29,2012, the District Court judge stated: Respondent shall not contact the [petitioner] in person, by telephone, in writing, or any other means And "any other means" is putting it on a blog, a Tweet, a megaphone, a smoke signals-what else is out there-sonar, radar, laser. Nothing. Transcript at 59. LAW OffiCES W BOURS, IlL PC SUITE 103 2. That, to place this in context, Petitioner claimed at the District Court hearing 401 JEfFERSON STREET R.OCKVILLE }.lARYLA}/O 20850 (3011 340 7600 that Respondent had written abouthim on the internet in a blog known as "Allergic to Bull." Petitioner further claimed that unfavorable comments about him in this blog had caused
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
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Petitioner
v.
AARON WALKER,
Respondent
Case No. 8526D
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PARTIAL STAYOR MODIFICATION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
PEACE ORDER PENDING APPEAL
Respondent, Aaron J Walker, by REGINALD W. BOURS, III, PC, and pursuant
to Maryland Rule 7-112(c), respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue an
immediate order modifying or staying enforcement of a peace order issued by the District
Court of Maryland for Montgomery County [Vaughey, J .. ] on or about May 29, 2012,
pending a final hearing now scheduled in this court for July 5,2012, and in support of this
request, states as follows:
1. The subject peace order is attached as an exhibit to this motion, and on its
face prohibits "electronic contact" by Respondent with Petitioner.. However, in its oral ruling
issued May 29,2012, the District Court judge stated:
Respondent shall not contact the [petitioner] in person, by telephone, inwriting, or any other means And "any other means" is putting it on a blog, aTweet, a megaphone, a smoke signals-what else is out there-sonar,radar, laser. Nothing.
Transcript at 59.LAW OffiCES
i~,EGJNALD W BOURS, IlL P C
SUITE 1032. That, to place this in context, Petitioner claimed at the District Court hearing
401 ~AST JEfFERSON STREET
R.OCKVILLE }.lARYLA}/O 20850
(3011 340 7600
that Respondent had written about him on the internet in a blog known as "Allergic to Bull."
Petitioner further claimed that unfavorable comments about him in this blog had caused
-2-
other persons, not Respondent, and none of whom was identified, to "harass" or "threaten"
Petitioner at various times. Petitioner did not establish a direct causal connection between
the communications he did receive and this Respondent, and his entire presentation in
District Court was designed to prohibit the Respondent from exercising his rights of free
speech.
3. That, additionally, the Maryland Peace Order statutes do not allow for the
kind of overly broad order that was passed in this case by the District Court. Specifically,
the statute provides:
(2) If the judge issues an order under this section, the order shall containonly the relief that is minimally necessary to protect the petitioner.
4. Additionally, neither the Petitioner nor the District Court judge correctly
interpreted the portion of the statute permitting a peace order where it is established that
a Respondent has violated Crim. Law § 3-803. That statute provides:
Prohibited
(a) A person may not follow another in or about a public place or maliciously engagein a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys the other:(1) with the intent to harass, alarm, or annoy the other;(2) after receiving a reasonable warning or request to stop by or on behalf of theother; and(3) without a legal purpose.
Exception
(b) This section does not apply to a peaceable activity intended toexpress a political view or provide information to others"
Md. Code Ann, Crim. Law § 3-803 (West) [Emphasis supplied]
Further, in Galloway v State, the Court of Appeals specifically stated that
from its ambit." 781 A 2d 851,878 (Md. 2001). In other words, constitutionally protected
expression cannot be considered harassment.
5. That, for the foregoing reasons, the District Court peace order should be
modified or stayed for direct violations of the Maryland peace order statutes ..
6. To further assist the court in reviewing the matter, this is the second peace
order filed against the Respondent by the Petitioner. On January 9,2012, the Petitioner
appeared before the District Court and a District Court Commissioner following a court
appearance in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. He successfully obtained a
temporary peace order based on allegations of assault and harassment from the District
Court in case number 0601 SP005392012, and a Commissioner issued a criminal
summons for assault in case number 0000276493.
7. The Montgomery County State's Attorney Office declined to prosecute the
criminal charge after video evidence from a Circuit Court security camera failed to support,
and largely contradicted the Petitioner's claims .. When the Respondent was notified of this
decision, he filed a written opposition to the State's absolute right to enter a nolle prosequi
See attached exhibit.
8 A District Court judge granted a final peace order to the Petitioner solely on
the basis of harassment, but declined to find there was clear and convincing evidence of
an assault. Respondent appealed that decision to Circuit Court, and the Honorable Eric
M. Johnson found that there was no evidence of harassment within the meaning of the
peace order statute and relevant criminal harassment statute, and declined to find a basis
to order an ongoing peace order based on the allegation of assault. Judge Johnson found
in favor of the Respondent based on the Petitioner's presentation only.
II
-4-
9. In the current proceeding, the Petitioner went to a District Court
Commissioner at midnight on Saturday, May 19, 2012 and presented ex parte claims that,
in part, rehash "factual" allegations from his first peace order case and somehow obtained
an interim order on the basis that putting information on the internet about the Petitioner
was somehow a threat to the Petitioner and therefore constituted harassment.
10. Following issuance of the interim order Petitioner appeared again in an ex
parte proceeding before a District Court judge on May 22, 2012 That judge issued a
temporary order that was never served on the Respondent Before a final hearing was
even held, and again on a weekend night, the Petitioner went to a commissioner and
obtained criminal charges [See attached] alleging violations of the unserved temporary
peace order based on the Petitioner's claimed receipt of threats following blogs and tweets
on the internet Blogs and tweets do not involve direct contact by the author with this
Respondent, but were communications about the Petitioner directed toward a general
audience. In short, the effect of the District Court peace order" .. is not attempting to stop
the flow of information into [the Respondent's] own household, but to the public."
Organization fora BetterAustin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419-420 (1971), an act considered
inherently questionable by the Keefe court .. See also United States v. Cassidy, 814 F.
Supp. 2d 574 (D Md .. 2011) (dismissing a prosecution for "stalking" by twitter and blogs
because they are released to the general public and only seen by the "victim" voluntarily).
11 . The record of the District Court peace order hearing demonstrates that there
was absolutely no evidence that the Respondent had personally threatened the Petitioner
II
-5-
or that anyone did so at the Respondent's direction. Tr.. at 17-18.. Rather, the court found
that the Respondent had incited threats against the Petitioner merely by asserting that the
Petitioner had engaged in reprehensible conduct Tr at 55.
12. The District Court imposed a broad-based prior restraint upon the
Respondent's speech to a general audience As the Supreme Court said in Keefe, supra,
" ... [a]ny prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a heavy presumption against
its constitutional validity." 402 US at 419 (internal quotations omitted) Rather than
overcome that burden, the District Court disregarded by name controlling Supreme Court
precedent on what constitutes incitement:
A [Walker] But, your honor, I did not incite him within the Brandenburgstandard ..
Q [the court] Forget Brandenburg. Let's go by Vaughey right now, andcommon sense out in the world
The "Brandenburg" that Judge Vaughey chose to ignore was Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US
444 (1969). where the Supreme Court stated that:
The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit aState to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violationexcept where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminentlawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action
395 US, at 447 [Emphasis supplied]
There was no evidence in the District Court hearing that the Respondent advocated
the use of force or "law violation" as required by the Brandenburg standard. Indeed, the
uncontradicted testimony of the Respondent indicates that he actively took steps when
writing about the Petitioner to prevent vigilantism:
II
-6-
[Walker] I have told the world about what this man did to me, but it's all I'vedone. Now I know, Your Honor.. that when you. say to the world,"Someone has done something evil," that you do obviously have a risk ofthings like violence and things like that It's inescapable. But I have neverincited violence.. I have always told people every time they have saidanything violent in my presence, I said, "I don't endorse violence even as ajoke." .
On top of that, I put numerous, numerous, numerous primary documents onmy website. Many of those documents originally had [Kimberlin's] homeaddress, had his phone number, had his email address, etcetera, etceteraI carefully redacted every single instance of that. I didn't put any currentphotos of Mr.. Kimberlin on the website[ .. ]
Tr.. at 43-44, copies attached. In Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court specifically held
that merely stating that a person has engaged in "reprehensible conduct" and that law
enforcement had failed to address that conduct is not sufficient to constitute incitement
justifying a prior restraint of freedom of expression, even when there is fear that such
expression might "disturb the public peace and ... provoke assaults and the commission of
crime." 283 US 697,721-22 (1931)
13. Further, as noted above, the court cannot find that harassment has occurred
if the conduct is done for a "legal purpose." MD. CRIMINAL LAw CODE §3-803(a)(3). And the
Respondent's purpose is not only legal, but specifically enumerated in the First
Amendment: he was petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Respondent
believes that the Petitioner (who has a long and deplorable criminal record) has actually
attempted to frame the Respondent for a crime and has asked the State's Attorney to file
charges relating to perjury and other false statements the Petitioner has made while
attempting to cause the Petitioner to be incarcerated. Despite having video evidence
proving that the Petitioner lied in his first criminal complaint, lied in his first petition for
II
-7-
peace order and perjured himself in every proceeding related to that first peace order, the
State's Attorney has rebuffed Respondent's request for the Petitioner to be charged with
a crime. Therefore having exhausted official channels, the Respondent has gone public
with his story, asking for the public to urge the State's Attorney to prosecute Petitioner:
[Walker] Look at, for example, what happened with the Trayvon Martinincident, okay? A man named George Zimmerman shot this young mannamed Trayvon Martin His parents felt that [Zimmerman] deserved to becharged with a crime The police did not charge him. So they raised anational uproar. And what happened? They've now charged him.
Now, I disagree with the decision to charge Mr Zimmerman, but that is themodel of what I am trying to do. I'm trying to create enough of a nationaluproar to create pressure on [Montgomery County State's Attorney] JohnMcCarthy to finally charge [Kimberlin] with the crimes related to him trying toframe me for a crime I'm trying to get justice .. And he wants to shut me up.
Tr. at 50-51 This is undeniably a legal purpose and therefore rebuts any claim that
Respondent is "harassing" Petitioner Thus for this reason as well, the District Court failed
to overcome the "heavy presumption" against the constitutional validity of this prior
restraint Keefe, 402 US at 419
14. Emergency relief and indeed ex parte relief is appropriate in th is case First,
this is a continuing and intolerable violation of Respondent's First Amendment rights that
if left unaddressed will ironically go through Independence Day. "Where .. a direct prior
restraint is imposed ... , each passing day may constitute a separate and cognizable
infringement of the First Amendment" Nebraska Press Assn v Stuart, 423 U. S. 1319,
1329 (1975) (BLACKMUN, J, in chambers). And indeed expedited process has frequently
been used to prevent irreparable harm to First Amendment rights. In Patuxent Publishing
Corp v. State, 429 A2d 554 (Md Ct Spec. App 1981), the Court of Special Appeals
II
-8-
provided next day review of a Howard County Circuit Court order that implicated the First
Amendment and in CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315 (1994) (Blackmun, J, in chambers)
another prior restraint on the press went from the initial temporary restraining order in
South Dakota Circuit Court to a stay issued by a US. Supreme Court justice in fifteen
days. And while all of those cases involved the institutional press, the Supreme Court has
"consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional
privilege beyond that of other speakers." Citizens United v FEC, 130 SCt 876, 905
(2010)
15 Further, under Carroll, it is clear that the default position is that the
Respondent should be free to express himself without prior restraints until and unless the
Petitioner can overcome the presumption against such restraints at a fulsome hearing.
"[E]ven where this presumption [against prior restraints] might otherwise be overcome, the
Court has insisted upon careful procedural provisions, designed to assure the fullest
presentation and consideration of the matlerwhich the circumstances permit" Carroll, 393
U. S at 181. The District Court hearing, where the judge refused to review the allegedly
harassing writings (Tr.. at 48), and disregarded controlling Supreme Court precedent by
name, does not meet this standard.
16. Accordingly, this court should find immediately and on an ex parte basis that
the Petitioner did not meet his burden under Carroll to justify this prior restraint on the
Respondent's speech and stay the enforcement of the prohibition against discussing the
Petitioner to a general audience until such time as this burden is met This should be done
immediately and ex parte because it is already clear based on the record below that an
11
-9-
insufficient factual basis exists to support this prior restraint If Petitioner, at some later
date, comes to this court with sufficient evidence to justify the prior restraint on the
Respondent's freedom of expression-either in a responsive pleading or at the July 5,
2012 hearing-at that time this court can re-impose this prior restraint
17 This emergency motion does not address the prohibitions in the peace order
that prevent the Respondent from entering the Petitioner's residence, harming the
Petitioner or threatening to do so, or indeed by contacting him with directed
communications, such as phone calls, e-mails, letters, text messages, or any other
messaging service whereby a person directs communications to specific person or
persons.. A proposed order for limited ex parte relief is attached.
WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sign an
appropriate ex parte order modifying or staying the provisions of the District Court peace
order that purports to limit is right of free speech>
REGINALD W. SOURS, IIIAttorney for Respondent401 East Jefferson StreetSuite 103Rockville, Maryland 20850(301) 340-7600
DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY191 EAST JEFFERSON ST, ROCKVILLE, MD 20850 Case No. 0601SP019792012
Date: OS/29/2012 10:52 am.
BRETT KIMBERLIN vs AARON JUSTIN WALKER
FINAL PEACE ORDER
After the appearance of the PETITIONER, and RESPONDENT, and in consideration of the Petition andevidence,the Court makes the following findings:
A 1 That there is clear and convincing evidence that within 30 days before the filing of the Petition, theRespondent committed the following act(s):Placed Person Eligible for relief in fear of imminent serious bodily harm: COUNTLESS NUMBER OFBLOGS EITHER THREATENING DEATH
2 That there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is likely to commit a prohibited act in the futureagainst the Petitioner
Based on the for·egoing, the Court hereby ORDERS:
1 Unless stated otherwise below, this Order is effective until 11/15/2012.
2 That the Respondent SHALL NOT commit or threaten to commit any of the following acts against Petitioner:an act which causes serious bodily harm; an act that places the Petitioner in fear of imminent serious bodilyharm; assault; rape, attempted rape, sexual offense, or attempted sexual offense; false imprisonment;harassment; stalking; trespass; or malicious destruction of property.
3. That the Respondent SHALL NOT contact (in person, by telephone, in writing, or by any other means),attempt to contact, or harass the Petitioner
4. That the Respondent SHALL NOT enter the residence of PETITIONER at ANYWHERE(Residence includes yard, grounds, outbuildings, and common areas surrounding the dwelling)
5. That the Respondent SHALL STAY AWAY from:
The Petitioner's place(s) of employment at:ANYWHERE
Comments:THREATSCOND#1- NO ELECTRONIC CONTACT
Date: OS/29/2012J
NOTICE TO RESPONDENTVioiation of this Peace Order may be a crime or contempt of court or both, and couid result in imprisonment or fine or both
PC/PO 3 (Rev 12/2004) Page 1
Aaron
Rectangle
IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
------------------------------x
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,
v,
AARON JUSTIN WALKER,
Defendant ..
------------------------------x
Case No, 0601SP019792012
.~
HEARING
Rockville, Maryland
DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC,12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210
Germantown, Maryland 20874(301) 881-3344
May 29, 2012
,
i I
.Y ,'.l I,TYr·. ,- ~-H.t!;I
,II,
..... _ ......1 -. __ ~ - __ • _~ ...
B' =-·'I'T KI .' -RL,. I..!!I
..
'. t 1_ -_ ,{ •II
..
.. C:" ..',_- _ J
·0····' JU.. '."1'1 1.lIr-:LlEc:oo. ....l· . I .", " "R,
..'
_ I __ ~"" __ oiiiIiiii- _,IiiiiiIIiio ........P-.111111111 oIiiiiiiIio~,_.iIiiiiiiii.
,okv' le,ary anI
I
a 2'.9, 20 2
-'oc· 'd, ~ "g''- ,- . I' 1 e' t,itlr'-d
rna _·tar co' mence,·~
CO, ,.,L J "DGH'E'
II "s .,
'. ax:'
'E . I '.. ~l:.'o Sa
I08_
O· JU'T ',.''. '.. 1'1 . I '. I S" I --0 Se
'0 a,· ess p' 'Iov i . e·
WITNESSES
For the Petitioner:
Brett Kimberlin
DIRECT
5
.1 N D E X
CROSS
21
REDIRECT RECROSS
For the Respondent:
Aaron Justin walker 40
kc
1
2
3
THE COURT: No, you can't right now,
MR" WALKER: All right,
THE COURT: That's what you got to, as when I was
59
4 over in Munich in the appeals courts over there --
MR, WALKER: Okay, Your Honor,5
6 THE COURT: - - appeal" All right, sir" This order
7 shall remain in effect until November the 15th, 2012" During
8 that period of time, you not shall commit any act that causes
9 him, puts him in fear and apprehension of bodily harm, any act
10 that places the gentleman in fear and apprehension of grave
11 bodily harm, any assault, rape, attempt to rape, sexual
12 offense, false imprisonment, harassment, stalking, trespass, or
13 malicious destruction of property"
14 Respondent shall not contact the person in person, by
15 telephone, in writing, or any other means, And "any other
16 means" is putting it on a blog, a Tweet, a megaphone, a smoke
17 signals - - what else is out there - - sonar, radar, laser
18 Nothing"
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 me?
MR" WALKER: So, I'm not allowed to --
THE COURT: You
MR, WALKER: speak about him for six months?
THE COURT: How many times are you going to - -
MR WALKER: What happened to the First Amendment?
THE COURT: How many times are you going to interTupt
Aaron
Rectangle
kc 43
1 Q -- can't even get to the point I just asked a
2 simple question, Were you convicted?
What?
No, I was not,
I apologize, Your Honor,
That's quite all right, Were you convicted?
Okay" Then what happened to the case?
It was nolle prossed after he filed --
Okay" Nolle prossed, that's an action of the State,
I apologize, Your Honor,No"
Q
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
A3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 not by you and not by him, that's a State action, Okay"
12 That's all I want to know" Nolle prossed.,
13
14
A
Q
Right"
That can be brought back in the statute of
15 limitations or whatever
it's something different"
I reported on my, I have told the world about
That's true, Your Honor,
I don't want, keep going"
SoSo that's, okay,-- the time it becomes --, okay
Okay,
Q
A
A
16
17
18
19
20 what this man did to me, but it's all I've done Now, I know
21 Your Honor, I know Your Honor, that when you tell, say to the
22 world, n Someone has done something evil, n that you do obviously
But I have never incited violence, I have always
23
24
have a risk of things like violence and things like that,
inescapable,
It's
25 told people every time that they have said anything violent in
kc 44
1 my presence, I said, "I do not endorse violence even as a
2 joke .. " And even if they joke about it, "Oh, wouldn't it be
3 funny if he went to prison and got raped," I would say, "That
4 is not cool, I'm not cool with that" I was always clear with
5 that ..
6 On top of that, I put numerous, numerous, numerous
7 primary documents on my website.. Many of those documents
8 originally had his home address, had his phone number, had his
e-mail address, etcetera, etcetera.9
10 single instance of that.
I carefully redacted every
I didn't put any current photos of
11 Mr.. Kimberlin on the website. I
Did you send all those e-mails that he had there?12
13
Q
A I did not send any nasty e-mail to him .. I've never·
14 sent him an e-mail, period ..
So those 54 pages, 540 e-mails, never came from you?
Well, the 54 pages he's talking about is Twitter, and
That was not the question.. You've changed it again ..
Well, I apologize.
Did you send those e-mails?
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
No, I didn't.. I've never e-mailed him, period.
21 Twitter is something where you talk to the world, not to Brett
22 Kimberlin.. Brett Kimber·lin believes that if you speak anywhere
23 on the Internet, it is equivalent to putting a letter in his
24 mailbox .. And he is trying to use, he's trying to equate it to
25 Galloway, in Galloway v. State, saying Your Honor, that, or in
Aaron
Rectangle
ff:r ...1ey<-If{
,.9
C)o~;\ ::::
C-'(';;_...\
;~:c' ,_.{
DISTRICT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND
STATE OF MARYLAND,Plaintiff,
v No.OD00276493 en,\.
o
AARON JUSTIN WALKER,Defendant.
VICTIM/COMPLAINANT BRETT KIMBERLlN'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TOSTATE'S MOTION TO NOLLE PROS THIS CASE
Now comes Victim/Complainant Brett Kimberlin ("Victim") and hereby opposes
the State's Motion to Nolle Pros this case In SUppOlt of this motion, Victim states
that this is not simply a rull of themiJI assault case but rather one that has both._,.__._,,-,-~ --'-' ",..".'--' -
'llatlt5l1ii]'alfd1fiternationalramlfiCatlonsan:a Ei beIngwatched byfederal law
enforcement authorities, Stilte Department contractors, organizationsthat monitor
hate groups, foreign countries with large Muslim populations, and national Ml1slim
and civil rights organizations. There are many aggravating factors piesent in this
case that warrant full prosecution and even consideration of additional charges
against Mr Walker.
Factual Statement
1. Defend\lnt Aaron Walker is a Virginia attomey who assaulted Victim on
January 9, 2012 after a civil court hearing in Montgomery County Circuit
Court
2 Prior to the hearing, Mr Walker had been stalking and harassing Victim on his
personal blog with defamatory, aggressive, and derogatory posts He asked
:~ . DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR MONTGOME~~~~!~!!Wmllllill~I~I~ml~".:Jl
191 EAST JEFFERSON ST, ROCKVILLE, MD 20850 Case No, 0801SP005392012Date: 0210812012 10:46 a m
BRETT K1MBERL.lNE vs AARON WALKER
FINAL PEACE ORDER
After the apPearanoe of the PETfnONER, and RESPONDENT, and in consideration of the Pamion andevidence,the Court makes the following findings:
A 1 That there is clear and convinoing eVidenoe that within 30 days before the filing of the Pelition, theRespondent committed the following aot(s):Hamssment
2 1hat there is clear and oonvinolng evldenoe that Respondent is IIkeiy to commit a prohibited aot in thEj futureagalnst the Petitioner
Based on lhe foregoing, the Court hereby OI'lOERS:
Unless stated otherwise below, this Order is effec\ive until 08108/2012
2 That the Respc:mdent SHALL NOT commit or lhreaten to commit any of the following acts against Petitioner:an act whiQh o8Usesseilous bo(fily harm; an act that places the Petitioner in fear of Imminent seiious bodilyharm: essaull; rape,atlemp\edrap,e, sexual offene\', or attempted seXual offense; false impriSonment;harassment; stalking; lrespass;or malicious dlOlslruCtion ofproperty
3 That the RespondlOlnt SHA~l NOT contact (in person, by telephone, in writing, or by any other means),attempt to contact, or harass the Petitioner
4 rhalthe Respondent SHALL Nor enler lhlOlresldence of 6REIT KIM6E;RlINE at WMEREVER l.OCATED(Residenceiholudes yard, grounds, oulbulldlngs, and common areas surrounding Ihe dwelling)
5 That thl; Respondent SHALL SlAY AWAY from:
rhe Petitioner's place{s) of employment at:WHEREVER l.OCATE;D
Date: 02/0812012
NonCE TO RE.SPONDENTViolation of this Peaoe Order may be a crime or contempt of oourt or both, and could result In imprisonment or fine or both
PCIPO 3 (Rev 12/2004)
--~----~------ -
Page 1
---- - -- - ---~-- -------------
------_._--~.~..,._--,--------_.__ •....~..----
DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR Montgomery CountyLocated at 191 East Jefferson St, Rockville, Maryland 20850 Case No. SD00279004
STATEMENT OF CHARGESUPON THE FACTS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICAnON OF KIMBERLIN, BRETT IT IS FORMALLY CHARGEDTHAT WALKER, AARON at the dates, times and locations specified below:
NUM CHG/CII STATUTE PENALTY DESCRIPTION OF THE CHARGE
001 20105 CJ 3-1508 90 D &lOI $1,00000 PEACE ORDER: FAll.. TO COMPLYOn or About 05122/2012 - 05f27f2012
"1111""'11I.1BETHESDAMONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND...did failw comply with an Onlcr dated 05-22-12, issued under-the AnnotatedCode ofMaIyland, Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, Sec 3-1504 thatordered the respondent to refmin from committing or threatening to commit anyofthe acts specified in Section 3-1503 of said Courts & 1udicial ProceedingsArticle against BREIT KIMBERlIN AND contacting. attempting to contact,harassing BREIT KIMBERlINAgainst the Peace, Government. and Dignity of the State.