Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/192428743/DBCS-Motion-to-Dismiss-With-Exhibits-OCR
Timestamp: 2018-02-20 03:05:22
Document Index: 91704660

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1962', '§ 1961', '§1962', '§1961', '§1961', '§1961', '§1961', '§1983', '§1983', '§1983', '§1985', '§1985', '§1985', '§1985', '§1985', '§1985', '§1985', '§1985', '§1985', '§1985', '§1985', '§1985', '§1985', '§1985', '§1985']

DBCS Motion to Dismiss With Exhibits (OCR) | Defamation | Conspiracy (Civil)
Description: DB Capital Strategy's motion to dismiss Brett Kimberlin's RICO suit
DB Capital Strategy's motion to dismiss Brett Kimberlin's RICO suit
BRETT KIMBERLIN, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, Et. al. Defendants
MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER RULE 12(b)(6) FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Comes now, Defendant DB Capitol Strategies PLLC (hereinafter “DBCS”), by and through counsel, hereby moves to dismiss Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) Amended Complaint for the reasons stated herein. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is not susceptible to adjudication. Background Last year, Judge Motz of this Court dismissed the matter of Walker v. Kimberlin, U.S. Dist. Court, Dist. of MD (Civil Case No. 8:12-cv-01852-JFM) (Order dated 11/28/12). That matter involved the instant plaintiff and one of the defendants in this matter, Aaron Walker (hereinafter “Walker”). In dismissing the suit, Judge Motz stated, “I deem it unwise to intervene in the bitter political disputes between the parties.” Walker v. Kimberlin, U.S. Dist. Court, Dist. of MD (Civil Case No. 8:12-cv01852-JFM) (Judge Motz Memorandum dated 11/28/12). The entirety of the involvement between DBCS and Plaintiff involves the representation of Walker in that case and a Prince William County
Virginia Circuit Court case that was subsequently dismissed based on Judge Motz’s ruling. Walker v. Kimberlin, U.S. Dist. Court, Dist. of Md., (Civil Case No. 8:12-cv-01852- JFM) LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rules of Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) provides that a complaint may be dismissed “if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). A plaintiff’s complaint must contain “… a short and plain statement of a claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give a defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rest.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Though the Twombly standard requires only a short and plain statement, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. A satisfactory claim for relief “demand[s] more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) if it merely “offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action… [or] if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. ARGUMENT I. Plaintiff’s first claim for relief should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to show conduct, an enterprise, and racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. §1962(c)-(d). Plaintiff accuses DBCS of engaging in an ongoing conspiracy against him in violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter “RICO”) 18 U.S.C. § 1961– 1968. To state a claim under §1962(c), a plaintiff must allege, “…(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” Sedima v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985). As the Court discussed in Sedima, conduct is the “conducting or participating in the conduct of an enterprise 2
through a pattern of racketeering activity.” Id. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1961, an enterprise is “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." 18 U.S.C. §1961. Racketeering activity is any act "chargeable" under several generically described state criminal laws, any act "indictable" under numerous specific federal criminal provisions, including mail and wire fraud, and any "offense" involving bankruptcy or securities fraud or drug-related activities that is "punishable" under federal law. 18 U.S.C. §1961(1). Finally, a pattern of racketeering requires “at least two acts of racketeering activity. ” 18 U.S.C. §1961. Plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief should be dismissed because the Amended Complaint fails to allege the required elements of conduct, an enterprise, racketeering activity or a pattern of racketeering activity as required by 18 U.S.C. 1962(c). The representation of Walker by DBCS in a lawsuit against Plaintiff is insufficient to implicate it in conduct comprising racketeering activity. DBCS wrote about the progress of its ligation against Plaintiff on one or more websites and raised money to support its pro bono representation of Walker. (Amended Complaint, ¶¶76, 77, 78; Blogger’s Defense Team, “about” page, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”; Blogger’s Defense Team, “narrative” page, attached hereto as “Exhibit B”). The Amended Complaint fails to identify any conduct that would constitute
“racketeering” under the applicable standard, or conduct chargeable under a criminal statute, let alone a pattern of such racketeering activty. These facts are insufficient to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), and, as such, Plaintiff’s first claim should be dismissed.
II. Plaintiff’s second claim for relief should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to state a claim against DBCS under 42 U.S.C. §1983 Plaintiff fails to state a claim against DBCS under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Amended Complaint, ¶¶154-160). Plaintiff’s only allegation under 42 U.S.C. §1983 is against Defendant Patrick Frey. Thus, his second claim against DBCS should be dismissed. III. Plaintiff’s third claim for relief should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to show obstruction of justice, intimidation of a party, witness, or juror, and unlawful deprivation of rights and privileges under 42 U.S.C. §1985(2)-(3) A. Plaintiff fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1985(2) Plaintiff claims DBCS violated 42 U.C.S. §1985(2). (Amended Complaint, ¶¶162-166). Under 42 U.S.C. §1985(2), it is unlawful to obstruct justice, intimidate a party, witness, or juror. To
demonstrate a valid §1985(2) claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) a conspiracy between two or more persons and (2) to deter witness by force, intimidation or threat from attending court or testifying freely in any pending matter, which (3) results in injury to plaintiff. Haigh v. Matsushita Electric Corp., 676 F. Supp. 1332, 1343 (E.D. Va. 1987). A conspiracy “has not been stated” where “plaintiffs have not alleged a conspiracy between defendant and any other person or entity.” Lamont v. Forman Bros., Inc., 410 F. Supp. 912, 918 (D.D.C. 1976). A plaintiff must also, “…allege facts showing that defendants agreed to violate his constitutional rights,” in order to prove a conspiracy under §1985(2). Clark v Maryland Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs, 247 F. Supp. 2d 773, (D. Md. 2003). Plaintiff did not allege a conspiracy between DBCS and any other person or entity, and did not allege facts showing that DBCS agreed with any other person or entity to violate his constitutional rights. (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 76-79). Plaintiff has also not alleged that DBCS, or any hypothetical conspirator, used force, intimidation or threats under §1985(2). Neither of the websites referenced in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contain 4
threatening or intimidating language. (See Exhibits A and B). Rather, the websites described the representation of Walker by DBCS against Plaintiff and then described the progress of the litigation. Plaintiff has similarly failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1985(2). The Amended
Complaint provides insufficient facts to show that a conspiracy existed, that any such hypothetical conspiracy used force, intimidation or threats under §1985(2), or that any such hypothetical conspiracy deterred an unnamed, hypothetical witness from testifying freely or attending court. Plaintiff’s factual allegations against DBCS are that DBCS represented Walker in a lawsuit against Plaintiff, posted information related to this litigation on one or more websites and raised money to fund its pro bono representation of Walker. (Amended Complaint, ¶76, 77, 78). As Plaintiff failed to allege facts that “raise a right to relief above the speculative level”, dismissal is appropriate under the Twombly standard. B. Plaintiff fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) Plaintiff similarly claims DBCS unlawfully deprived him of rights or privileges under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3). A claim asserted under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) requires (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; (3) an overt act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy; and (4) that the plaintiff (a) was injured in his person or property, or (b) was deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a United States citizen. Simmons v. Baker, 842 F. Supp. 883, 889 (E.D. Va. 1994). Independent acts of two or more alleged wrongdoers do not constitute a conspiracy under §1985(3). Murdaugh Volkswagon, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank, 639 F.2d 1073, 1075 (4th Cir. 1981). The factual allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fail to support Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) claim. As stated above, Plaintiff’s allegations against DBCS are as follows: (1) DBCS
represented Walker in a prior lawsuit against Plaintiff, (2) DBCS posted information related to the progress of the lawsuit on one or more websites, and (3) DBCS raised money to fund its pro bono representation of Walker. (Amended Complaint, ¶76, 77, 78). These facts do not allege a conspiracy claim, do not allege a hypothetical conspiracy that was carried out through an overt act for the purpose of depriving Plaintiff equal protection of the laws or equal privileges and immunities under the laws, and do not allege that Plaintiff was injured or was deprived of exercising a right or privilege. As these
factual allegations fail “raise a right to relief above the speculative level” under a §1985(2) claim, dismissal is appropriate under the Twombly standard.. IV. Plaintiff failed to state a claim for Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation A. Fraud An allegation of fraud requires that a plaintiff allege the following: (1) a representation made by a party was false; (2) its falsity was either known to the party or made with such reckless indifference to the truth as to impute knowledge; (3) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of defrauding some other person; (4) that person reasonably acted in reliance upon the misrepresentation with full belief in its truth, and he would not have done the thing from which damage resulted had it not been made; and (5) the person so acting suffered damage directly resulting from the misrepresentation. Call Carl, Inc. v. BP Oil Corp., 554 F.2d 623, 629 (4th Cir. Md. 1977). Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support allegations that DBCS made any false representations, knew of the falsity of any such representations (of which there were none), or that DBCS recklessly ignored the alleged and unproved falsity of any such representations (again, of which there were none). The representation by DBCS of Walker in a prior lawsuit, the posting of information related to the litigation on one more websites and fundraising to offset litigation expenses do not support a fraud claim under Maryland law. (Amended Complaint, ¶¶76, 77, 78). Plaintiff has not claimed, and cannot possibly claim based on his factual allegations, that he took action in reliance on statements made 6
by DBCS. He further has not claimed that he suffered any actual damage based on that reliance or that he suffered any actual damage based on his reliance. As Plaintiff has failed to allege a sustainable cause of action for fraud under Maryland law, this claim should be dismissed in accordance with Twombly. B. Negligent Misrepresentation Negligent misrepresentation requires that a plaintiff allege the following: 1) the defendant, owing a duty of care to the plaintiff, negligently asserts a false statement; 2) the defendant intends that his statement will be acted upon by the plaintiff; 3) the defendant has knowledge that the plaintiff will probably rely on the statement, which, if erroneous, will cause loss or injury; 4) the plaintiff, justifiably, takes action in reliance on the statement; and 5) the plaintiff suffers damage proximately caused by the defendant's negligence. Martens Chevrolet, Inc. v. Seney, 292 Md. 328, 336-337, 439 A.2d 534 (Md. 1982). DBCS did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care, and DBCS did not negligently assert a false statement. Rather, Plaintiff attempts to assert that DBCS uttered a false statement when it posted that it “was suing Plaintiff in federal court to defend bloggers from ‘swatting’”. Plaintiff has not, and cannot, assert that he in any way relied upon that statement. Further, DBCS did not intend that this statement would be acted upon by Plaintiff nor has Plaintiff alleged such action. DBCS’s representation of Walker, the information posted on the internet related to the litigation and the fundraising initiated to support DBCS’s pro bono representation of Walker do not support a claim of negligent misrepresentation. (Amended Complaint, ¶¶76, 77, 78). As Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation
claim fails to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level”, this claim should be dismissed under the Twombly standard. V. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for Defamation Under Maryland law, Plaintiff’s allegation of defamation per se fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To assert a defamation claim, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) the defendant
made a defamatory statement regarding the plaintiff to a third person; (2) the statement was false; (3) the defendant was legally at fault in making the statement; and (4) the plaintiff suffered harm thereby. ” S. Volkswagen, Inc. v. Centrix Fin., LLC, 357 F. Supp. 2d 837 (D. Md. 2005). Plaintiff is a public figure and is therefore further required to allege sufficient facts to show actual malice on the part of DBCS. Dobkin v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6445, 45-46 (D. Md. Apr. 17, 1996). Public figures are defined as those who “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Int'l, 525 F. Supp. 585, 588-589 (D. Md. 1981). Plaintiff is a public figure because he had a book written about his convictions for various heinous and grievous crimes, including wholesale drug trafficking, perjury, and domestic terrorism1. Plaintiff is, in fact, the notorious “Speedway Bomber” who terrorized the town of Speedway Indiana in 19782. Throughout Plaintiffs’ incarceration, he sought the media spotlight by claiming to have sold marijuana to former Vice President Dan Quayle and sought to tell his tale through a jailhouse press conference3. These facts support the conclusion that Plaintiff is a public figure and must thus show actual malice by DBCS. As Plaintiff alleges defamation per se, he must also show that DBCS acted with malice. Samuels v. Tschechtelin, 763 A.2d 209, 245 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000). To act maliciously, Defendant must have acted with either “reckless disregard for its truth or with actual knowledge of its falsity. ” Id. at 242. Plaintiff did not allege DBCS acted with reckless disregard for the truth of its statements nor does he allege DBCS had actual knowledge of (alleged) falsity of the statements.
Singer, Mark. Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1996. Print. Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0679429999. 2 2 Singer, Mark. Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1996. Print. (p. 90-91). 3 Singer, Mark. Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1996. Print. (p. 117-119).
Paragraph 76 of the Amended Complaint alleges that: (1) DBCS “posted on its website that it was suing Plaintiff in federal court to defend bloggers from “swatting,”4 imputing that Plaintiff was responsible for those swattings,” (2) DBCS “wrote on its blog that Plaintiff’s “victims” were “swatted,” implying that Plaintiff was involved with the swattings,” and (3) DBCS stated that “Kimberlin[s] ‘associates’ are suspected in far more sinister forms of harassment – including the ‘SWATting’ of an Assistant DA in California.” Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to sustain a claim for defamation, failed to plead that DBCS made false statements, has failed to allege facts to support his claim that DBCS acted with reckless disregard for the truth or with actual knowledge of the falsity of statements, and has not plead sufficient facts to allege an injury was suffered as a result of statements made by DBCS. First, Plaintiff’s sole allegation is that DBCS “posted on its website that it was suing Plaintiff in federal court to defend bloggers from “swatting,” imputing that Plaintiff was responsible for those swattings.” (Amended Complaint, ¶76). This statement fails to state a claim for defamation because Plaintiff failed to allege that this statement was false, that DBCS acted with knowledge of its falsity, or that Plaintiff suffered injury as a result of its publication. Second, Plaintiff alleges that DBCS “wrote on its blog that Plaintiff’s “victims” were “swatted,” implying that Plaintiff was involved with the swattings.” (Amended Complaint, ¶76). This statement explains the nature of Walker’s lawsuit against Plaintiff, and is therefore not defamatory. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that DBCS wrote on its blog that “Kimberlin ‘associates’ are suspected in far more sinister forms of harassment – including the ‘SWATting’ of an Assistant DA in California.” (Amended Complaint, ¶76). This statement is not defamatory because it is true that persons associated with Plaintiff were suspected in such incidents.
Swatting is the making of a hoax telephone call to 9-1-1 to draw a response from law enforcement, usually a SWAT team. http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2013/september/the-crime-of-swatting-fake-9-1-1-calls-have-real-consequences/.
Taken in totality, the facts alleged by Plaintiff fail to show actual malice on the part of DBCS. Plaintiff has failed to state a Maryland defamation claim and dismissal of this claim is appropriate under the Twombly standard. VI. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for False Light Invasion of Privacy To properly allege a false light invasion of privacy claim in Maryland, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that the defendant gave publicity to a matter that places the plaintiff before the public in a false light; (2) that a reasonable person would find that the false light in which the other person was placed highly offensive; and (3) that the defendant had knowledge of or acted with reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the defendant placed the plaintiff. Mazer v. Safeway, Inc., 398 F. Supp. 2d 412 (D. Md. 2005). Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for Relief should be dismissed because he merely recites the elements of a false light claim (Amended Complaint, ¶197-207), fails to specifically name DBCS, and fails to challenge the veracity of statements made by DBCS. Plaintiff provides only a recitation of the elements of a false light invasion of privacy claim (Amended Complaint, ¶197-207), but fails to support this claim with sufficient factual allegations. A complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) if it merely “offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action…[or] if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiff also fails to challenge the actual truth and veracity of the statements made by DBCS and therefore fails to state a claim for false light invasion of privacy. (Amended Complaint ¶76, ¶197-207). Under Maryland law, “[w]here the truth is so close to the facts, the court will find that no legal harm has been done.” Dobkin v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6445, 29 (D. Md. Apr. 17, 1996). Additionally, Plaintiff fails to specifically name
DBCS in its Sixth Claim for Relief and instead names “Defendants” without any attribution to specific activity committed by DBCS. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint includes the following factual allegations: (1) DBCS “posted on its website that it was suing Plaintiff in federal court to defend bloggers from “swatting,” imputing that Plaintiff was responsible for those swattings,” (2) DBCS “wrote on its blog that Plaintiff’s “victims” were “swatted,” implying that Plaintiff was involved with the swattings,” and (3) DBCS stated that “Kimberlin[s] ‘associates’ are suspected in far more sinister forms of harassment – including the ‘SWATting’ of an Assistant DA in California.” (Amended Complaint, ¶76). These factual allegations are insufficient to support a false light invasion of privacy claim because they do not allege any conduct by DBCS that relates to the elements of a false light invasion of privacy claim. Additionally, the claim fails to meet the standards for defamation, and “[t]he Fourth Circuit, interpreting Maryland law, has refused to allow a claim for false light invasion of privacy to stand where the claim failed to meet the standards for defamation. Dobkin v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6445, 37 (D. Md. Apr. 17, 1996); See supra Section V. Under Twombly, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 55. Therefore, this claim should be dismissed. VII. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires the following: "(1) The conduct must be intentional or reckless; (2) The conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; (4) The emotional distress must be severe." Mitchell v. Baltimore Sun Co., 164 Md. App. 497, 883 A.2d 1008, 1024 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2005) (citations omitted). Maryland courts have cautioned that the tort of intentional infliction of
emotional distress is to be used "sparingly" and only for "opprobrious behavior that includes truly outrageous conduct." Kentucky Fried Chicken Nat'l Mgmt. Co. v. Weathersby, 607 A.2d 8, 11 (Md. 1992). Plaintiff’s Seventh Claim for Relief should be dismissed because he provides insufficient facts to allege that DBCS’s conduct was extreme or outrageous. The Amended Complaint fails to allege a causal connection between DBCS’s conduct and the emotional distress. Plaintiff only alleged that DBCS represented Walker in a prior lawsuit against Plaintiff, posted information related to the status and progress of the litigation on a website, and raised money to support DBCS’s pro bono representation of Walker. (Amended Complaint, ¶76, 77, 78). These facts, even if true, do not support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law. Plaintiff’s seventh claim should be dismissed under the Twombly standard. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, DBCS respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Claims for Relief for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, having stated its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant DBCS prays for relief as follows: 1. An Order dismissing the instant case. 2. An Order granting attorney’s fees and costs. 3. An Order for injunctive relief to enjoin Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin from initiating any further frivolous and meretricious litigation without the prior approval by a court appointed special
master or the posting of a bond in accordance with such order to be paid as fees for the dismissal of such claims; 4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
_/§/
Caitlin Parry Contestable
PROPOSED ORDER For the reasons set out in Defendant DB Capitol Strategies PLLC’s Motion to Dismiss, it is this ____ day of _________, 2014, by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division, ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss be, and hereby is, GRANTED, ORDERED that attorney’s fees and costs be awarded to Defendant DBCS and ORDERED that Plaintiff, Brett Kimberlin, be enjoined from initiating any further frivolous, meretricious litigation without the prior approval by a court appointed special master or the posting of a bond.
_________________________ Paul W. Grimm United States District Judge U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division 14
Defending Free Speech Against Lawfare And SWATting
DB Capitol Strategies, in partnership with RightSolutions, a 501c3 public charity, is building a nationwide team of lawyers to fight those who would silence online free speech. Our first salvo in that effort has been to file a federal lawsuit against Brett Kimberlin, seeking, in part, an injunction to prevent the state from ever again arresting Mr. Aaron Walker, an American citizen, for exercising his right to free speech, and to release him from any prior censorship restrictions imposed by unlawful judgements. This is only the first step in what we call the "Bloggers Defense Team." We are firmly committed to exposing and combating the efforts of Brett Kimberlin, otherwise known as the Speedway Bomber, and his well-funded allies who will use any means of harassment to silence political opposition. No citizen of the United States should ever be arrested merely for blogging - especially not for blogging about the crimes of a public figures and the crimes of convicted criminals. This is an issue that should cross all party lines and divisions. Free speech is what makes our country great, and we must all forever defend it - or forever lose it. JOIN US in this fight by contributing to the Right Solutions Bloggers Defense Fund Today!
Donate To The Bloggers Defense Team
Disclaimer: Vigilantist retaliation or threats to do so can be illegal. If you suspect that you are the victim of lawfare, cybersmears, or other forms of free-speech harassment, do not take matters into your own hands. Do not contact in any way the person or persons you suspect of committing these crimes; instead, contact law enforcement and your attorney to deal with the matter in a legal and responsible way.
Contact: bloggersdefense at bloggersdefenseteam dot com RightSolutions is a 501(c)(3) non-profit public charity registered as the Institute for Individualism. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law. IRS Determination Letter. IRS 990 Form © 2012, all rights reserved. RightSolutions
bloggersdefenseteam.com/?about
A Court ordering a conservative blogger to shut down and be silent, denying him his fundamental right to free speech as an American, an investigative journalist, and a publisher of political news & opinion JUST SHOULDN'T HAPPEN IN AMERICA. But it did - and worse. Aaron Walker had the courage to write about convicted drug dealer and terrorist Brett Kimberlin, the infamous "Speedway Bomber." Most notorious for placing a bomb in a public school that so horribly maimed an innocent man that it ultimately led to his suicide, Kimberlin is now funded by the far left, including George Soros, Barbara Streisand, and Teresa Heinz-Kerry. Walker is now under COURT ORDER to be silent and not speak about this criminal- or face arrest. Bloggers are vital to counter the establishment media and promote an alternative message to Americans. In the past few years, online-activists have been indispensable to a full airing of political events and bad public policy. To counter this effective exercise of free speech, Brett Kimberlin has been loosed on the public to engage in harassing "lawfare" ( he has filed more than 100 frivolous lawsuits) to intimidate and silence bloggers with baseless accusations, mounting legal bills, unconstitutional criminal sanctions and arrests. For merely speaking their minds. Meanwhile, Kimberlin scoffs at millions of dollars in court judgments against him - including one by his own Mother - while playing fast and loose with charitable giving laws that allow millions to be funneled from Liberal donors to support his twisted, anti-speech agenda. That is WRONG. While Kimberlin's lawfare assault on Aaron Walker - which cost Walker his job, his reputation, and falsified criminal charges - is finally garnering media attention, Kimberlin's list of victims is still growing, and the stakes are becoming life and death. Kimberlin "associates" are suspected in far more sinister forms of harassment - including the "SWATting" of an Assistant DA in California. This "SWATing", involved a phony call made to the police to report a violent crime in order to incite a SWAT team's response to the victim's home - a highly dangerous and potentially fatal "prank". Amazingly (or not), the mainstream media has ignored the near fatal jeopardy of a public official and others. Meanwhile Kimberlin's "charitable" organizations have attracted donations from a who's-who of liberal foundations - funds that seem to do little to advance charitable goals but do seem to keep Kimberlin & company in the Harass-the-Opposition-Blogger business.
www.bloggersdefenseteam.com/?narrative
Those who believe in free speech must unite to defend the victims of Kimberlin's harassment, fight back against these sordid tactics, and pursue both Kimberlin and his allies and donors for this unlawful conduct and their knowing or tacit support. DB Capitol Strategies, in partnership with Right Solutions, a 501c3 public charity, is building a nationwide team of lawyers to defend the victims and taking the fight to Kimberlin. To win this battle in courtrooms around the country, we need your support. We've fired the first salvo in defense of Aaron Walker by filing a federal lawsuit against Kimberlin and seeking an injunction to prevent the state from arresting an American exercising his right to free speech. This is only the first step. We are committed to helping Aaron Walker and others expose Kimberlin and his well-funded allies in their efforts to silence their foes. *** Kimberlin styles himself a progressive activist and has started two leftist nonprofit groups: Justice Through Music and Velvet Revolution. Justice through Music allegedly helps young people become activists through music and voter registration while Velvet Revolution is currently supporting the "Occupy" movement and other leftist causes. These two organizations have attracted over $1.8 million in recent years from major left-wing funders; Kimberlin donors include the George Soros-funded Tides Foundation, the Barbara Streisand Foundation and the (Teresa HeinzKerry helmed) Heinz Foundation. But while his nonprofits are prolific fundraisers, they seem to do little else. According to a report by Fox News, the only thing these organizations do well is spend lots of liberal dollars - but it's not clear on what. Instead of "advocacy", Kimberlin seems to spend his time and resources harassing his critics with frivolous lawsuits and baseless accusations. This has no place in a vibrant Republic. His vicious shenanigans have resulted in two arrests on questionable charges resulting in at least one victim having lost his job and he has even harassed the families of his foes. Kimberlin's use of "lawfare" targets more than just Conservatives; he will pursue anyone who inquires into his past and his organizations. According to blogger Lee Stranahan, his list of targets includes:
Aaron Walker, blogging as Aaron Worthing Kimberlin managed to procure a "Peace Order" against Walker for blogging about his interactions with Kimberlin and the details of Kimberlin's sordid past; it was upheld and Walker was temporarily arrested! Kimberlin's grounds for the "Peace Order" were based on a frivolous "assault" claim arising from a prior interaction with Walker. Kimberlin made baseless claims that third-party comments and tweets posted on Walker's blog in response to truthful statements by Walker somehow put Kimberlin in fear for his life; in no instance has Walker ever attempted to incite violence against Kimberlin.
www.bloggersdefenseteam.com/?narrative 2/7
Maryland Judge Cornelius Vaughey upheld the "Peace Order" against Walker and ordered him not to comment publicly about Kimberlin for six-months. This prior restraint on Mr. Walker's speech is a clear violation of Supreme Court precedent. Walker's real "crime" was his work as a nationally-renowned Conservative blogger, media figure, and public commenter to expose what he believes is criminal and civilly tortious conduct by Kimberlin. Kimberlin went so far as to file a state bar complaint in Virginia against Walker and as a result of this pattern of harassment, Walker's employer terminated him. No one should lose their job for speaking their mind, and investigative journalists like Walker should never have a court order their silence on threat of arrest! Pat Frey, blogging as "Patterico" In October 2010, only one day after Frey began investigating his activities, Kimberlin threatened to sue Frey; stating, according to Frey, "I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money and for what." In July 2011, Frey was "SWATted." Someone called the Police, claimed to be Frey, and confessed that they had just shot his wife. A fully-armed SWAT team showed up at Frey's door along with a brigade of police cruisers and a helicopter. This bizarre and extremely dangerous stunt put Frey and his family in imminent threat of harm. When Frey answered the door he was holding a cell phone, which police could have easily mistaken for a gun; while his home was searched he was held at gunpoint by police and handcuffed. While no charges resulted from the hoax, Frey has good reason to suspect Kimberlin's involvement; Frey obtained the 911 call recording which sounded identical to the voice of alleged Kimberlin-associate Ron Brynaert. Around the time of the "SWAT", Kimberlin associates had already coordinated efforts to silence Frey; they had sent him threatening messages on Twitter, and filed baseless complaints with Frey's employer and the state bar. Robert Stacy McCain, blogging as "The Other McCain"
www.bloggersdefenseteam.com/?narrative 3/7
Kimberlin began harassing McCain after he exposed the connection between Kimberlin and Democrat Party consultant Neal Rauhauser. On May 21, 2012 McCain's wife reported that Kimberlin had contacted her employer. McCain was so fearful that he and his family were forced to flee his home and he continues his work from an "undisclosed location." Erick Erickson, conservative blogger at "Redstate," CNN Contributor On May 27, 2012, a week after he began blogging about Kimberlin, Erickson was "SWATted." Someone pretending to be Erikson called 911 claiming there had been an accidental shooting at his residence. Luckily, Erickson had notified authorities in advance with details of Kimberlin's pattern of harassment and informed them that he may be targeted. Mandy Nagy, blogging as "Liberty Chick" Kimberlin targeted Nagy after she wrote an extended piece for an Andrew Breitbart website exposing Kimberlin's past and current activities. Kimberlin threatened her with a lawsuit in the same manner as he had done with Frey. Nagy was also named as third party in Kimberlin's lawsuit against blogger Seth Allen. James O'Keefe, Conservative activist Kimberlin's "non-profit" group Velvet Revolution urged the Maryland Attorney General to prosecute O'Keefe, Hannah Giles, and Andrew Breitbart for their takedown of ACORN. Seth Allen ­ Liberal blogger Kimberlin sued Allen after Allen began looking into Kimberlin's past and debunked claims made by Kimberlin's organization Velvet Revolution concerning the 2004 presidential election. Kimberlin had Allen arrested when he showed up to the mandatory civil hearing. The Real Brett Kimberlin
What kind of person is capable of such vile, pernicious, hyperactive and ongoing harassment? A look at who Brett Kimberlin really is sheds some light. Brett Kimberlin's sordid story begins over thirty-five years ago in Indiana. While still in high school he was convicted on a federal charge of perjury, and soon after graduating he was
www.bloggersdefenseteam.com/?narrative 4/7
suspected of running a major marijuana-trafficking operation out of a vegetarian restaurant. However, that was just the beginning of Kimberlin's path to infamy. While at the restaurant, he met and began dating Sandra Barton. Barton's mother, Julia Scyphers, became increasingly concerned with the inordinate amount of attention Kimberlin began showing her preteen granddaughter, Sandra Barton's daughter, Jessica. According to the book Citizen K, for three consecutive summers Kimberlin took little Jessica on vacation alone and even referred to the child as his "girlfriend." Unsupervised, the two traveled to Disney World, Mexico and Hawaii. Mrs. Scyphers suspected Kimberlin was "grooming" the preteen to be his wife. In fear for her granddaughter's safety, On June 23, 1978, Mrs. Scyphers, visited the office of her daughter's apartment complex to have the locks changed to keep Kimberlin away from her granddaughter. Her concern was not unfounded. On July 29, 1978, a little over a month after requesting the locks be changed in Barton's apartment, Mrs. Scyphers turned up dead with a gunshot wound to the head. No one was ever charged in that murder, but police began investigating Kimberlin because of the sordid and obvious family connection. While police were gathering evidence in the heinous murder, they soon had bigger crimes to solve: a domestic terrorist was on the loose in Suburban Speedway, Indiana. In the late summer of 1978, Brett Kimberlin began a reign of terror that Indianans vividly remember to this day. Branded the "Speedway Bombings," Kimberlin was responsible for a week-long bombing spree that caused extensive property damage, including the destruction a police cruiser. But it was his last bomb, exploding on September 6, 1978, that caused the most damage. Kimberlin planted a bomb inside a duffle bag at a high school football game and unknowingly, Vietnam veteran Carl DeLong picked up the bag and it exploded. The bomb severely injured DeLong's left leg and right hand, and shrapnel punctured his wife's leg. DeLong's injuries proved so debilitating that he eventually committed suicide. His wife subsequently won a civil judgment against Kimberlin for $1.6 million dollars. Still, Kimberlin's criminal streak had not come to a halt. According to the Indianapolis Star, he next surfaced in Texas, where on Feb. 16, 1979 he and his drug-running compatriots cleared a runway in the brush where they expected to receive an airplane shipment of 10,000 pounds of marijuana. When the police caught up to Kimberlin they found a TASER, pistols with silencers, AR15 rifles, poison tipped bullets, and makeshift security guard uniforms. According to an Andrew Brietbart story, Brett Kimberlin received the following sentences for his months-long rampage of terror in 1981: Kimberlin was convicted of the bombings and sentenced to a fifty-year term of imprisonment for manufacturing and possessing a destructive device, and malicious damage by explosives with personal injury. He received a concurrent twelve-year sentence for impersonating a federal officer, illegal use of a Department of Defense insignia, and a fiveyear term for receipt of explosives by a convicted felon. He was also given a four-year sentence by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on an
www.bloggersdefenseteam.com/?narrative 5/7
earlier, unrelated conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana. Kimberlin's sentences were aggregated by the Bureau of Prisons and treated by the Commission as a single aggregate sentence of 51 years, six months, and nineteen days. Kimberlin was eventually paroled in 1994, but after failing to pay the civil judgment against him to the widow of Carl DeLong, he was re-incarcerated until 2001. In debt for millions of dollars, he now lives with his mother, who also has won a $150,000 civil suit against him. Since his release, Kimberlin has attempted to portray himself as a reformed "social justice" advocate. Yet, his actions speak louder than his phony public image. The social good he claims to be generating through his nonprofits, is a disguise to deter the public from bringing to light what appears to be his real passion: destroying lives. Kimberlin and his "associates" have succeeded in silencing critics through ruthless harassment and vile intimidation methods, but he will not be victorious forever.
We plan on spending less than twenty percent of contributions on administration costs. The remainder will be spent on legal fees, lawyers, researchers, and investigators. In the coming days, we will form a publicly disclosed "advisory panel" of bloggers, and disclose the methods and reasonings for that panel and those that have been included (we will also welcome suggestions). Provide monthly statements on expenditures and contributions on that website.
Disclaimer: Vigilantist retaliation or threats to do so can be illegal. If you suspect that you are the victim of lawfare, cybersmears, or other forms of free-speech harassment, do not take matters into your own hands. Do not contact in any way the person or persons you suspect of
Contact: bloggersdefense at bloggersdefenseteam dot com RightSolutions is a 501(c)(3) non-profit public charity registered as the Institute for Individualism. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law. IRS Determination Letter.
committing these crimes; instead, contact law enforcement and your attorney to deal with the matter in a legal and responsible way.
IRS 990 Form © 2012, all rights reserved. RightSolutions
Documents Similar To DBCS Motion to Dismiss With Exhibits (OCR)
May 15 Bosworth Response to Mike Rounds Response