DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210
Germantown, MD 20874(301) 881-3344
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
------------------------------x:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, ::
Plaintiff, ::
v. : Civil No. 8444D:
AARON WALKER, ::
Defendant. ::
------------------------------x
TRIAL
Rockville, Maryland April 11, 2012
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
------------------------------x
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
AARON WALKER,
Defendant.
------------------------------x
Civil No. 8444D
Rockville, Maryland
April 11, 2012
WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled
matter commenced
BEFORE: THE HONORABLE ERIC M. JOHNSON, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, Pro Se
Bethesda, Maryland 20817
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
REGINALD W. BOURS, III, Esq.Reginald W. Bours, III, P.C.401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 103Rockville, Maryland 20850-2617
DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.
I N D E X
PageOpening Statements :
Brett Kimberlin 5Plaintiff Pro Se
Reginald W. Bours, III, Esq. 8For the Defendant
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
For the Plaintiff :
Bruce Sherman 13 22 -- --Brett Kimberlin 35 57 83 --
For the Defendant :
(None)
EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED
For the Plaintiff :
Exhibit No. 1 20 20Exhibit No. 2 -- 49Exhibit No. 4 50 --Exhibit No. 5 50 --
For the Defendant :
Exhibit No. 1 29 30Exhibit No. 2 31 31Exhibit No. 3 -- 33Exhibit No. 4 72 76Exhibit No. 5 -- 77Exhibit No. 6 -- 79Exhibit No. 7 -- 79
Judge's Ruling 89
cc 4
P R O C E E D I N G S1
THE CLERK: Case 8444, Brett Kimberlin versus Aaron2
Walker.3
MR. KIMBERLIN: Good morning, Your Honor.4
THE COURT: State your name, please.5
MR. KIMBERLIN: Brett Kimberlin.6
THE COURT: All right.7
MR. BOURS: For the record, Your Honor, Reginald W.8
Bours, sir, on behalf of the respondent in the orig inal9
proceeding and the appellant in this Court. His na me is Aaron10
Walker.11
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.12
Any preliminary issues?13
MR. KIMBERLIN: No, sir.14
MR. BOURS: I thought I would, perhaps, give the15
Court a little background on the case to speed us a long. 16
I do want to ask for a rule on witnesses, although I17
have no objection to Lieutenant Colonel Sherman bei ng in the18
courtroom during this statement. I don’t know if t he young19
lady that’s in here is a witness. The gentleman on the far20
left of the courtroom is not a witness. 21
THE COURT: Are you a witness, ma’am?22
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.23
THE COURT: Okay. Fine.24
MR. BOURS: I just wouldn’t want any potential25
cc 5
witnesses, if Mr. Kimberlin wants to call anyone, t o be sitting1
in here while I’m making statements.2
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kimberlin, do you wish to3
make an opening statement?4
MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, sir.5
THE COURT: I’ll hear you and then I’ll hear from M r.6
Bours. Go ahead.7
OPENING STATEMENT BY BRETT KIMBERLIN, PLAINTIFF8
This case arises out of a peace order from the9
District Court. The District Court found, by clear and10
convincing evidence, that Mr. Walker has been haras sing and11
that he assaulted me in this courthouse on January 9th, 2012. 12
Mr. Walker has been engaged in a campaign of bullyi ng13
towards me online and this resulted in him showing up in a14
court case that I was involved with, getting admoni shed by15
Judge Rupp to remain quiet in the court case, and f ollowing me16
outside the courtroom where he continued to berate me and came17
at me in an aggressive manner which resulted in me taking a18
photograph of him as he was coming to hit me. He d id assault19
me at that time. 20
The courtroom staff came out of the courtroom, from21
Judge Rupp’s court, called the sheriff. Nine deput ies showed22
up and they advised me that they could not arrest M r. Walker23
because they didn’t see the assault, advised me to go to the24
commissioner’s office and press charges, which I di d, and I got25
cc 6
a peace order at that time also. Subsequently, the State’s1
Attorney’s office chose to nolle prosse the case, b ut the peace2
order has remained in effect. 3
Since then, since that January 9th attack, Mr. Walk er4
has retaliated against me in a number of ways, by f iling a5
false criminal charge against me which didn’t even get past the6
screeners at the State’s Attorney’s office. He fil ed a false7
peace order against an associate, sending the polic e out to my8
house to serve him when he has never even visited m y house. 9
He’s filed a $66,000,000 lawsuit against me, a friv olous and10
malicious lawsuit against me in Virginia. He has e ngaged in a11
Twitter campaign against me. I don’t tweet, but he has tweeted12
scores of posts about me on Twitter. He has posted on his own13
blog that I’m “human filth” and asked people not to donate to14
my nonprofits and if they do, that he will consider charging15
them with criminal and civil penalties.16
I’m the director of a nonprofit. I have been for17
over 10 years here in Maryland. I work with young people,18
Congress members, congressional offices, government offices,19
and community leaders to get young people out to vo te and20
engage in the world. 21
I was arrested 34 years ago on a crime. I was22
charged with a bombing case. I was charged with a conspiracy23
to possess marijuana case. When I was a teenager, I was24
charged and convicted for perjury forty years ago.25
cc 7
Mr. Walker seems to think that I cannot live that1
down. He has used his blog over and over for month s and months2
to call me a terrorist and a perjurer, and asked pe ople to3
harass me. I’ve gotten death threats because of hi s actions. 4
I’ve been called terrible names and it’s a continui ng process5
of harassment, and he has attempted to destroy and besmirch my6
reputation. 7
I’m a father. I’m a husband and I’m a community8
leader here in the area, and Mr. Walker wants to de stroy that9
because I, in my nonprofit, have helped Muslims -- Muslims,10
moderate Muslims. 11
I work with Muslim artists and activists. My 12
nonprofit is called Justice Through Music. Justice Through13
Music is a 501(c)(3) here in Maryland and as part o f our work,14
we work with Muslim activists here and abroad to pr ovide15
reconciliation between Muslims and Christians, and to oppose16
oppression and anarchy in dictatorial countries ove rseas. The17
State Department sends young Muslim activists to tr ain with my18
organization every year. 19
Mr. Walker does not like my work with Muslims. He20
runs -- he’s a publisher of a blog called Everyone Draw21
Mohammed. Everyone Draw Mohammed asks people to dr aw insulting22
depictions of the prophet Mohammed. He has over 80 0 depictions23
of the prophet Mohammed on his blog. 24
He calls -- he tells people on his blog to -- he25
cc 8
tells “Muslim bitches,” quote, to come to his blog and if they1
don’t like what he says about insulting them, to co me to his2
home in Manassas, Virginia, where he’ll engage in a gun battle3
with them.4
So Mr. Walker does not like the fact that I support5
Muslims. He tells people on his blog that the only way he’ll6
post a depiction on his blog is if considers it fat wa worthy, a7
fatwa being an edict by a Muslim cleric that -- an edict8
condemning the work or actions of a certain party.9
So this has gotten into quite a contentious situati on10
and I’ve been harassed. I’ve asked to be left alon e. Mr.11
Walker harassed me through a pseudonym called Aaron Worthing. 12
Aaron Worthing was --13
THE COURT: Excuse me. 14
MR. KIMBERLIN: Yeah.15
THE COURT: I asked for an opening statement, which16
is, as you may know, a preview of what the case is about and I17
think I’ve got it.18
MR. KIMBERLIN: You’ve got it. Okay.19
THE COURT: Let me hear from Mr. Bours.20
MR. KIMBERLIN: All right.21
OPENING STATEMENT BY REGINALD W. BOURS, III, ESQ.22
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT23
Your Honor, from my perspective, what we’re really24
here to determine is whether the elements under the peace order25
cc 9
statutes are met by anything that is actually prove n in this1
Court. 2
I think a really good place to start is Mr. Kimberl in3
is absolutely incorrect when he says that a Distric t Court4
judge found that, by clear and convincing evidence, that there5
had been an assault. You have the file there and I ’ll simply6
conveniently hand up the final peace order signed b y Judge7
Everngam in District Court. 8
He found, by clear and convincing evidence, two9
things. He found that there had been harassment an d that it10
was likely to continue.11
We’re here de novo so I’m not going to say that Mr.12
Kimberlin can’t bring up anything at all. I’m goin g to leave13
that up to the Court to decide. But what is absolu tely wrong14
with the District Court’s finding is that harassmen t is defined15
under the criminal laws of the State, and I’ll argu e this16
later. I have the statutes here with me. You’ll f ind that17
nothing that Mr. Kimberlin actually testifies about , even if18
you accept his testimony, constitutes harassment un der the19
criminal statute and if it doesn’t, then a judge ca n’t order a20
peace order based on that. So that’s just the star ting point.21
Let me tell you that my client is a practicing22
attorney. He’s admitted to the bar in the District of Columbia23
and in the State of Virginia. He has a hobby invol ving24
blogging. He has a blogging site, as it were, call ed “Allergic25
cc 10
to Bull.” It’s a political type of site and it bas ically talks1
about politics, all kinds of different issues. I t hink,2
indirectly, that’s how he came to Mr. Kimberlin’s a ttention.3
What is really in the background of this case is Mr .4
Kimberlin was convicted of a number of things that he hasn’t5
told you about. He was convicted as an adult of pe rjury before6
the grand jury in Indiana. He was given a 50 year sentence for7
bombing, and one of the aspects of that bombing is that an8
individual who had his leg blown off committed suic ide, and his9
widow sued, and collected, not collected but got, a $1 million10
judgment against Mr. Kimberlin, which he later refu sed to pay11
and a federal court found him in violation of his p arole and12
revoked his parole for not paying the civil judgmen t that was13
part of his parole conditions. Some of these thing s happened14
as recently as 1999.15
Be that as it may, what happened in the background of16
this case is that this gentleman, Mr. Kimberlin, su ed somebody17
named Seth Allen in this court. I have the files h ere, but18
there was a court proceeding on January 9th. The c ase is Civil19
No. 339254V. Mr. Kimberlin sued somebody named Set h Allen. He20
got a judgment for $100 from Judge Jordan for defam ation, the21
defamation involving some of these same matters abo ut his22
background, supposedly. Judge Jordan also ordered and cited an23
injunction saying that Seth Allen should not do any thing24
harmful to Mr. Kimberlin’s business.25
cc 11
As near as I can place it, the only connection my1
client has to any of this is that he heard about th e action2
against Seth Allen and told Seth Allen he should ge t a lawyer,3
because Seth Allen defaulted in the case I just men tioned. So4
everything that happened between Kimberlin and Seth Allen was5
on a default judgment basis. 6
After Judge Jordan on November 14 issued an7
injunction and awarded $100 in damages to Mr. Kimbe rlin, Mr.8
Kimberlin claimed that Seth Allen was continuing in his9
defamatory or business interference activities. Be cause the10
name Aaron Worthing had come up in the proceedings, he issued11
subpoenas to Google, among others, to reveal the id entity of12
Aaron Worthing, the blog that I was telling you abo ut. 13
My client got involved in that litigation14
peripherally, but only after he sent -- he, meaning Mr.15
Kimberlin -- sent him an e-mail in which he brought out all of16
his personal data in a motion that he had filed to withdraw the17
request for subpoenas to Google. 18
This makes no sense to most people, I think, maybe19
not to the Court, but what’s going on here is that Mr.20
Kimberlin was actually engaging in a campaign again st Mr.21
Walker, not the other way around. In fact, the onl y thing that22
had happened prior to January 9th involving a blog or anything23
was on December 11th of 2011. That’s the only thin g my client24
had done at all.25
cc 12
So, at any rate, my client comes to the courthouse on1
January 9th because there’s a motion in front of Ju dge Rupp2
across the hall, and he stood up in front of Judge Rupp, and3
pointed out that this man had put his identity out in a4
pleading that’s filed in the court, and he asked th at it be5
sealed, which he did; that is, Judge Rupp did agree to seal the6
document this man put out. This man was doing it b ecause he7
actually was attempting to cause harm to my client.8
What he’s told you about this Muslim Web site and9
everything else, there’s maybe a grain of truth to it, but what10
you’ll find in the end, if you ever get to it, is t hat I think11
that Mr. Kimberlin was hoping that somebody would c ome to my12
client’s home because of the litigation in which he was13
identified and actually cause him harm. That’s a p rocess of14
intimidation that is typical with Mr. Kimberlin as we may show15
during the evidence.16
At any rate, my client and Mr. Kimberlin were pro s e17
in the proceedings below. My client is not a Maryl and lawyer. 18
The matter of the statutes on harassment wasn’t eve n argued in19
the proceedings below. We have a transcript if you need to see20
it. In fact, under the Maryland law, number one, m y client has21
not committed harassment within the meaning of that statute. 22
That statute requires a course of conduct that just isn’t going23
to be shown by the evidence.24
Secondly, they have no connection to each other at25
cc 13
this point in time, other than maybe this lawsuit t hat was1
filed against Mr. Kimberlin in Virginia. But this is not an2
appropriate proceeding in which to order a peace or der against3
Mr. Walker and I think you’ll find at the end of th e case that4
the petitioner should not be believed, that the evi dence is not5
clear and convincing of either an assault or harass ment.6
THE COURT: Thank you.7
Are you your first witness, sir?8
MR. KIMBERLIN: I can -- because the sheriff is her e,9
I would be happy to call him so he can --10
THE COURT: That’s fine. You call witnesses in the11
order you want to.12
MR. KIMBERLIN: Yeah. I’ll call Sergeant Sherman, I13
think is your name.14
THE COURT: I don’t think he appreciates being15
busted. It’s Colonel Sherman.16
MR. KIMBERLIN: Oh. Colonel. Sorry.17
BRUCE SHERMAN18
called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, hav ing been19
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol lows:20
THE COURT: You may inquire, sir.21
DIRECT EXAMINATION22
BY MR. KIMBERLIN23
Q Hi. Colonel Sherman, you’re familiar with an24
incident that occurred on this floor on January 9, 2012?25
cc 14
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I’m familiar with an1
incident report No. 12 -- I’m sorry, an incident re port dated2
January 9, 2012, that was filed by deputies in the Montgomery3
County Sheriff’s Office. 4
THE COURT: All right.5
BY MR. KIMBERLIN:6
Q Can you tell us what that incident report says?7
MR. BOURS: Object.8
THE COURT: I sustain that objection. 9
Let me just say this for the record, sir. 10
I know this matter was down in District Court and i n11
the District Court, by rule and practice, the Court is12
permitted to relax the rules of evidence, the reaso n being that13
most people who come to District Court, particularl y with small14
claims, do not have lawyers. Often times the claim s in15
District Court, the amount of the claim, certainly the legal16
fees, would exceed what the amount of the lawsuit i s. So most17
of the people or many of the people who appear in D istrict18
Court are not represented, and so the Court relaxes the rules19
and allows citizens to sort of present their case.20
Here in the Circuit Court, we are not permitted to do21
that. The rules of evidence and the rules of proce dure apply22
whether the person is a lawyer or whether they are not a23
lawyer. We have one set of rules. 24
So, the objection that counsel has made is to the25
cc 15
reading of a report which includes hearsay informat ion that1
doesn’t fall within any -- well, I haven’t read it, so I don’t2
know, but presumably, it doesn’t fall within any ex ception to3
the hearsay rule and would not be admittable here i n Circuit4
Court. At any rate, police reports and the sheriff ’s5
department is a law enforcement agency, police depa rtment. 6
Those reports are not admissible. 7
MR. KIMBERLIN: So you’re saying the police report is8
not admissible because the person that wrote it is not here? 9
Is that what you’re saying?10
THE COURT: I’m saying that it is hearsay. It11
doesn’t fit within any exception to the hearsay rul e and they12
are routinely not admitted in the Circuit Court.13
Now anything that the sheriff saw, anything that he14
witnessed, he can certainly testify about that.15
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.16
BY MR. KIMBERLIN:17
Q Were you there at the incident?18
A No, sir.19
MR. KIMBERLIN: Then I have no further questions.20
THE COURT: Any questions?21
MR. BOURS: I did not subpoena Colonel Sherman, but I22
have some things I’d like to introduce through him at the23
appropriate time.24
THE COURT: Well, I know --25
cc 16
MR. BOURS: So I would ask that the Court allow him1
to remain or ask him to remain until it’s our turn to present2
evidence.3
THE COURT: I know how busy they are, so what I wil l4
allow you to do is clear the hurdles of evidentiary rules and I5
won’t rule on the admittance or not of those things , and he6
doesn’t need to stay.7
Are you following me, sir?8
MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, could I just ask him another9
question then?10
THE COURT: Sure. But I’m going to let Mr. Bours11
mark and identify whatever it is needs to come thro ugh him. So12
the issue of whether it comes in or not won’t be wh ether it13
comes in through him. He’ll be gone. The issue wi ll be14
whether whatever it is is admissible otherwise.15
But if you have other questions, you may ask. Go16
ahead.17
BY MR. KIMBERLIN:18
Q Are you -- is a part of your job description to be19
the keeper of the video tapes of the courtroom inci dents?20
A The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office does keep s ome21
video recordings. In the current technology, they are not22
tapes but they’re hard drives.23
Q Okay.24
A But the Sheriff’s office does maintain some video25
cc 17
data that includes video activity in the courthouse .1
Q Are you familiar with a video that was taken of th e2
incident of January 9th?3
A I’m not personally familiar with it. I’m aware th at4
there was some video coverage of an incident in the courthouse5
on January 9th and that that DVD of that video was provided to6
both the State’s Attorney, for discovery purposes, and you for7
discovery purposes.8
MR. KIMBERLIN: Your Honor, am I allowed to show yo u9
that video?10
THE COURT: If you can have it properly identified.11
MR. KIMBERLIN: I mean is there going to be an12
objection to the video?13
THE COURT: A party doesn’t worry about what the14
other side is going to object to. You call your ow n plays. If15
they object, that’s what they do. You don’t try th e case to16
them. You try it to this Court and if I find that the evidence17
is admissible, it will be admissible over objection , if that’s18
the appropriate thing to do.19
BY MR. KIMBERLIN: 20
Q If I show you a video, can you tell the Court whet her21
that is the video of that event? 22
A I can tell you that the Sheriff’s office maintains23
videos and that as a result of request from the par ties, those24
videos were copied onto DVDs and provided either in criminal25
cc 18
discovery or pursuant to an information request to yourself. 1
I was not there for the incident. I didn’t see the2
incident occur. I would only be able to say that w hatever is3
on the DVD system is a recording of what our DVD an d -- or our4
recording system and video cameras –- observe in th e5
courthouse, but I don’t have any personal knowledge of what6
happened on that date or any time between you and a ny other7
individual. 8
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. Your Honor, I do want to9
introduce this video at some point. I can do it no w or I can10
do it as we go.11
MR. BOURS: I’m going to object again.12
THE COURT: Have the item marked.13
MR. KIMBERLIN: I mean it’s on a video. It’s on a14
computer. 15
THE COURT: You don’t have a disc?16
MR. KIMBERLIN: I don’t have a disc.17
THE COURT: How would I receive it into evidence,18
take your computer?19
MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I mean you can see it. You c an20
view it.21
THE COURT: But it has to be a part of the record. 22
We have to have it. It can’t --23
MR. KIMBERLIN: So you can’t --24
THE COURT: You don’t have a disc of it?25
cc 19
MR. KIMBERLIN: No.1
THE COURT: Then it won’t be able to be a part of t he2
record. In other words, the exhibit will have to b e marked by3
the clerk, shown to the witness, have the witness i dentify it,4
then the Court would receive it into evidence.5
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.6
THE COURT: I understood that there was a disc made7
and given to both sides?8
MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes. There was a disc made. I9
didn’t bring the disc because I’ve had it on my com puter. I10
downloaded it on my computer because I didn’t think you would11
be able -- it’s in a very strange format and we --12
THE COURT: Well, we deal with those formats all th e13
time. As you see, we have a machine here for showi ng the disc.14
MR. KIMBERLIN: Can I -- I’d like to --15
THE COURT: If you have photographs, that’s --16
MR. KIMBERLIN: I do.17
THE COURT: You can have them marked by the clerk a nd18
see if the sheriff can identify them.19
MR. KIMBERLIN: May I approach?20
THE COURT: Sure.21
BY MR. KIMBERLIN:22
Q I’m going to hand you three photographs and --23
THE COURT: Let Mr. Bours see them.24
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.25
cc 20
BY MR. KIMBERLIN:1
Q I’m going to hand you three photographs here. If you2
could just look at those and state to the Court whe ther those3
appear to be from the video in question.4
A They appear to be printouts from the Sheriff’s off ice5
video system showing scenes on the ninth floor lobb y of the6
judicial center. The camera frame identifies it as January 9,7
2012. They appear to be from the Vicon system that the8
Sheriff’s office uses for video cameras in the cour thouse.9
MR. KIMBERLIN: Thank you.10
Your Honor, would you like to see these?11
THE COURT: Any objection as to these?12
MR. BOURS: The objection I really have is they don ’t13
show a complete sequence of events. They are picke d by him for14
whatever he intends to show with them. I think we need to have15
the complete record.16
MR. KIMBERLIN: I have the video here and I can sho w17
that, too.18
THE COURT: Anything else?19
MR. BOURS: No.20
THE COURT: Overruled. I’ll receive the pictures.21
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.22
(The photographs were marked for23
identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit24
No. 1 and were received in evidence.)25
cc 21
MR. KIMBERLIN: May I describe what they are or not ?1
THE COURT: Well, I’ll look at them. The witness i s2
on the stand if you want to ask him questions about them.3
BY MR. KIMBERLIN:4
Q Can you identify anything in these pictures at all ?5
A Mr. Kimberlin, there are three pictures. There’s one6
taken at 11:42:34 a.m., according to the marking on the7
picture, one taken at 11:43 a.m., and one taken at 11:45:028
a.m. 9
The first one appears to be a picture of the ninth10
floor lobby taken from the camera in the lobby. Th ere appear11
to be three individuals in the picture, too, on the left side,12
one on the right side, and some briefcases, two bri efcases on13
the floor. I can’t identify who the people are. I don’t --14
have no idea who they are.15
Q Okay.16
A The second picture was, is marked as being, taken at17
11:43 a.m. I think there are one, two, three, four , five18
people in the photograph. I can’t identify who the y are.19
And in the last picture taken at 11:45:02 a.m. on20
January 9, 2012, there appear to be a whole lot of people in21
there, probably 10 people, of which three appear to be22
Montgomery County deputy sheriffs, people wearing t he tan23
Montgomery County deputy sheriff uniform that I’m w earing; one24
or two people in a dark blue uniform, which appear to be25
cc 22
sheriffs or law enforcement officers, and then four to six1
civilians. I can guess at who the people are, but I can’t2
identify their faces.3
MR. KIMBERLIN: All right. I have no further4
questions for the Colonel.5
THE COURT: Any questions?6
MR. BOURS: May I have the photographs?7
CROSS-EXAMINATION8
BY MR. BOURS:9
Q Do you know a deputy named Jim Johnson?10
A Yes.11
Q Is he in any of these photographs, if you want to12
look again?13
A He’s not in the first two. The one taken at 11:45 :0214
a.m., may be a picture of him. It’s taken from qui te a ways15
across the lobby. It’s what I would say is a rear profile16
picture, so you know, it’s hard to tell. It’s kind of back17
lit, but it could be Jimmy Johnson.18
Q Is he the author of the report that was mentioned19
earlier in your testimony?20
A Yes.21
Q Was his report submitted to the State’s Attorney’s22
office?23
A Yes.24
Q Was the video that we’ve been talking about, the f ull25
cc 23
video, not just individual photographs, was that al so submitted1
to the State’s Attorney’s office?2
A Yes. To my knowledge, the DVD video, the incident3
report from the Sheriff’s office, and perhaps print ed out4
frames of pictures may have been submitted for disc overy in a5
criminal case.6
Q Do you supervise Deputy Johnson?7
A Not directly, but I’m in the supervisory chain.8
Q From your knowledge, did he testify in the Distric t9
Court peace order proceedings?10
A In fact, I was summoned as a witness in the Distri ct11
Court peace order proceeding, I think by Mr. Walker . Both12
Deputy Johnson and myself were there, and Deputy Jo hnson did,13
in fact, testify in the District Court peace order proceeding.14
Q But you did not in that proceeding?15
A I think I was called to the stand and I identified16
the report.17
Q Was the DVD shown in District Court?18
A I have no idea. We were there. We were called as19
witnesses. After we testified, we left. So it was not shown20
by myself or Deputy Johnson. Whether it was shown after we21
left, I have no way of knowing.22
Q Deputy Johnson, where is he this week?23
A He’s, I think, on the eastern shore of Maryland at a24
training program.25
cc 24
Q So he’s not available to testify today?1
A No, sir.2
Q Were you in the courtroom when he testified in3
District Court?4
A Yes, sir.5
MR. BOURS: Judge, I’ll just proffer so that we don ’t6
have to fence around about it. I do have a disc an d I can have7
it marked. It’s currently in the only computer I c ould get it8
to work on and I’m reluctant to take it out and rui n that. But9
I’d like to show this to the Colonel and see if he can agree10
that this is the full video.11
THE COURT: And to Mr. Kimberlin.12
MR. BOURS: How long will this last if we don’t plu g13
it in again?14
MR. WALKER: I think we got half an hour.15
MR. BOURS: Okay. You want to pull out the plug16
then?17
MR. KIMBERLIN: I have no objection.18
THE COURT: Okay. But you might want to take a loo k19
at what it is he’s showing.20
MR. KIMBERLIN: I assume it’s the same thing. Yeah .21
BY MR. BOURS:22
Q Tell me about the system that these photographs ar e23
taken with or these videos are taken with.24
A There’s a Vicon system that has a number of hard25
cc 25
drives, maybe two or three hard drives. I’m not ex actly sure1
about the electronics, but there is a rack in the S heriff’s2
office on the T8 level in the courthouse that recor ds video3
feeds from cameras that are installed in the courtr ooms,4
installed in the hallways in the courthouse, pursua nt to a5
security study done by the National Center for Stat e Courts6
some years ago. 7
They typically -- some of them are fixed cameras. 8
Some of them are directable cameras and they record what I9
would call multiplexed video. In other words, it’s not a10
continuous stream of photographs. There are maybe 16 cameras11
being recorded on one hard disc and it will switch from each of12
those 16 cameras, as I understand it, take a fracti on of a13
second, switch to the next camera, and then it gets14
multiplexed. Then there’s a software kind of set u p that15
allows it to separate those pictures out again.16
Q Okay.17
A So it will take a picture but it will be every18
sixteenth of a second. There may be some gaps in i t.19
Q So it’s every sixteenth of a second that it --20
A I don’t know the exact fraction of a second. I kn ow21
that the multiplexing will go through a number of d ifferent22
cameras and then when you view it, it reassembles t hose. But23
it won’t be like a high definition movie that you w ould watch24
on your cable tv where it’s continuous.25
cc 26
Q The thing that is recording it is on a, I’ll call it,1
a pole or some kind of extension that comes down fr om the2
ceiling and has multiple views around the ninth flo or, is that3
right?4
A The -- there are cameras installed in various5
locations in the courtroom, courthouse, in the lobb y.6
Q Can you tell from this video though where this one is7
from?8
A This appears to be a camera in the ceiling of the9
lobby on ninth floor of the courthouse. There’s a wire or a10
conduit, whether it’s optical cable or electrical c able, that11
then runs back down from that camera to the basemen t in the12
courthouse to a essentially a computer hard drive. It gets --13
the information gets recorded on that hard drive.14
Q You know for a fact that the disk that is playing15
this was recorded for a period of time beginning at roughly16
11:40 a.m. on January 9th?17
A I -- other than looking at the data that’s display ed18
on the picture itself, I wouldn’t know what the tim e frame,19
date of it is or the time frame. It’s self authent icating in20
the sense that the frames have a date indication th at I would21
presume is correct.22
Q Just so you don’t have to come back, I’m going to23
start this real quick because it doesn’t take very long, and24
ask if it appears to be genuine to you.25
cc 27
(Whereupon, the video tape referred to was played.)1
THE WITNESS: Without going frame by frame through2
each picture frame in there, I would characterize i t as3
apparently a stop motion picture of the lobby that’ s outside4
this courtroom.5
BY MR. BOURS:6
Q This would be the disk that was submitted to the7
State’s Attorney’s office for discovery purposes, c orrect?8
A Again, without seeing the disk, I -- the Vicon9
presentation that you have on the screen appears to be what I’m10
used to seeing from the Vicon system. I didn’t mak e the disk11
myself. I don’t know whether the State’s Attorney gave you the12
original disk that the Sheriff’s office provided to them, or13
whether they duplicated it, or what not, but the im agery seems14
to be consistent with what I’m used to seeing on Vi con.15
Q Do you see any evidence of tampering with this as you16
watch it?17
A Again, there’s not any way I could tell whether it ’s18
been tampered with or not. I don’t see anything ob vious.19
Q Toward the end of this, there may be some deputies20
that show up and I’d like to see if you can say who they are21
and if Jim Johnson was one of them, according to on e of the22
photographs that’s on the moving screen.23
A Can you move it a little closer? The elimination is24
not really pretty.25
cc 28
Q Sure.1
A Um -- it would appear that one of them may be Jimm y2
Johnson, Deputy Johnson.3
THE COURT: The short one?4
THE WITNESS: I mean I think the Court -- if the5
Court looks at it, he can -- Your Honor can see who they are as6
well as I can. I think there’s Kim Meronawitz (pho netic sp.). 7
I think there may be --8
THE COURT: Let me see.9
THE WITNESS: I think Jimmy Johnson is one of them. 10
He’s the shorter one with short blonde hair.11
BY MR. BOURS:12
Q I’m going to show you a package that appears to co me13
from the State’s Attorney from Montgomery County re garding14
discovery and just ask this one question. The firs t document15
that I’m pulling out here is a two-page report. Is that a true16
and accurate copy of Deputy Johnson’s report?17
A Yes, sir.18
Q Is that report kept in the ordinary course of19
business of the Sheriff’s office regarding any inci dents that20
occur in the courthouse?21
A Yes, sir.22
MR. BOURS: May we have this marked as Respondent’s23
No. 1?24
MR. KIMBERLIN: No objection.25
cc 29
(The document referred to was marked1
as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1 for2
identification.)3
BY MR. BOURS:4
Q If an event occurs in the courthouse where injurie s5
are sustained by someone as a result of that incide nt, is there6
any part of this report or any report that you woul d keep7
regarding injuries?8
A One of the questions on the incident report is a9
question about injuries.10
Q In reference to this incident, was there any repor ted11
or obvious injury to Mr. Kimberlin?12
A The only way I would know would be by reading the13
incident report and the incident report reflects th at it was,14
first of all, that it was prepared by people respon ding after15
the incident was over. I think, if I could see the document,16
there’s a section of injuries under the name Brett Kimberlin. 17
Injuries. It says unknown.18
Q Would it have been at least part of the sheriff’s19
duties to inquire about injury or help someone obta in treatment20
for injuries, I assume?21
A Normally, if there were obvious visible injuries o r22
if there were some allegations of injuries, there w ould be a23
request as to whether or not somebody was injured. But in a24
situation where deputies respond after the fact to an incident25
cc 30
and there’s no obvious gross physical injury, they may put down1
unknown.2
Q Were you present in District Court when Deputy3
Johnson testified that there were no signs of injur y on Mr.4
Kimberlin?5
A I was present in District Court when Deputy Johnso n6
testified for the entire time he testified.7
Q Do you remember that part of his testimony?8
A I don’t specifically remember that.9
MR. BOURS: Your Honor, I’m going to offer10
Respondent’s No. 1.11
THE COURT: Any objection?12
MR. KIMBERLIN: No objection.13
THE COURT: I’ll receive it.14
(The item marked for identification as15
Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 was received16
in evidence.)17
BY MR. BOURS:18
Q Based on your recollection of this entire matter, did19
you submit to the State’s Attorney’s office individ ual20
photographs taken from the video? Was that part of what you21
all submitted to the State’s Attorney’s office?22
A To my knowledge, the Sheriff’s office, through Dep uty23
Johnson, would have submitted the incident report, the DVD, and24
several photographs printed out.25
cc 31
Q I’m going to hand that to you and just ask if you1
could look at each one and tell me whether that’s t he format in2
which Deputy Johnson would have submitted photograp hs from the3
video. In other words, if, are these Sheriff’s dep artment4
productions, as it were?5
A Those appear to be consistent with printouts from the6
Sheriff’s office Vicon video system.7
MR. BOURS: I’m going to ask that the Clerk staple --8
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to ignore you, Mr. Kimber lin, if9
you’d like to look at them.10
MR. KIMBERLIN: No objection.11
MR. BOURS: I’d like to have these marked,12
collectively, as Respondent’s No. 2, then you can s taple them13
further if you’d like, and offer them. I think the re’s no14
objection.15
THE COURT: All right. I’ll receive it.16
(The items were marked for17
identification as Defendant's Exhibit18
No. 2 and were received in evidence.)19
BY MR. BOURS:20
Q Now the time each one is taken is shown down in th e21
lower right-hand corner, is that correct?22
A They’re self authenticating as to date and time.23
Q When we play this for the Judge, or if we play thi s24
for the Judge, that continues to be true, it’s 25
cc 32
self-authenticating as to the time it was taken?1
A Yes. And you can see the time switch from each fr ame2
and you can see that each frame is roughly two seco nds after3
the previous frame.4
Q One other area that, I guess, qualifies as my part as5
opposed to Mr. Kimberlin’s direct, you’re familiar with the6
rules of this Court and of the Maryland Court of Ap peals, are7
you not, with regard to taking photographs in the c ourthouse?8
A Yes, sir.9
Q I’m going to show you Respondent’s Exhibit No. 3 f or10
identification. This is a copy, I believe, of the Maryland11
Rule, is that correct?12
A Yes, sir.13
Q Would you just state for the record what the polic y14
is of people taking photographs inside this court b uilding?15
A Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-110, the taking of16
photographs within the court facility is prohibited absent17
permission from one of the judicial members of the court.18
Q Are you aware of any permission having been grante d19
to Mr. Kimberlin to take a photograph of anybody or anything on20
January 9th?21
A On January 9th and until some time after January 9 th,22
I had no idea who Mr. Kimberlin was, so I wouldn’t know whether23
or not he had any permission to do anything.24
MR. BOURS: I offer Respondent’s 3.25
cc 33
THE COURT: I’ll receive it.1
MR. KIMBERLIN: No objection.2
(The document marked for3
identification as Defendant's Exhibit4
No. 3 was received in evidence.)5
BY MR. BOURS:6
Q Are you aware of whether or not Deputy Johnson7
investigated an iPad or some form of tablet compute r in Mr.8
Kimberlin’s possession for whether it had a photogr aph on it?9
A I’m unaware -- I am aware that in the incident rep ort10
there is some discussion of an iPad that -- again, my source is11
the incident report, but that apparently there was an iPad that12
Mr. Walker purported -- that Mr. Walker had that wa s returned13
to Mr. Kimberlin in the lobby of the courthouse.14
Q Do you know whether, based on the report of course ,15
whether it was examined to determine whether --16
A As far as I can tell, there was no examination of the17
iPad. It was simply one person claimed it was his. Deputy18
Johnson had it returned to the person who claimed i t was his.19
Q Is there any indication in the incident report tha t20
there was damage to that iPad?21
A I didn’t see any indication in the report of damag e.22
MR. BOURS: That’s all the questions I have.23
THE COURT: Any other questions, sir?24
MR. KIMBERLIN: No further questions.25
cc 34
THE COURT: All right, sir. Thank you very much.1
THE WITNESS: Thank you.2
Would you like your computer back?3
MR. BOURS: Yes. I think we’ll plug it in and use it4
later.5
(Witness excused.)6
MR. KIMBERLIN: May I continue?7
THE COURT: Yes, sir. Who is your next witness?8
MR. KIMBERLIN: I would like to be my own witness.9
THE COURT: Okay. You can come up, please. You ca n10
bring whatever you need.11
Actually, are you going to be offering those? Are12
those exhibits and so forth that you will be offeri ng?13
MR. KIMBERLIN: Maybe. I don’t know yet.14
THE COURT: Well, it might be better to just testif y15
from there because I don’t want you jumping up and down off the16
witness stand and running around to get things mark ed and so17
forth.18
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. That’s better.19
THE COURT: Any objection from you, Mr. Bours?20
MR. BOURS: Maybe at the time of cross-examination,21
it would be better for him to be there, but for rig ht now I22
don’t have a problem with it.23
THE COURT: For cross, he’ll be on the witness stan d,24
but as for now. 25
cc 35
Swear him in, please.1
BRETT KIMBERLIN2
the petitioner, having been first duly sworn, was e xamined and3
testified as follows:4
DIRECT EXAMINATION5
THE COURT: Sir, you have applied for a peace order6
against this gentleman. This is a trial de novo, a s if it7
didn’t happen in the District Court.8
THE WITNESS: Right.9
THE COURT: So why is it that you believe you shoul d10
have a peace order issued against this man?11
THE WITNESS: Mr. Walker has been harassing me,12
bullying me, inciting others to do --13
THE COURT: You can have a seat. You don’t have to14
stand. If you were in the witness stand, you would n’t be15
standing up.16
THE WITNESS: Okay.17
Inciting others to do that --18
MR. BOURS: Excuse me. I have to object the kind o f19
conclusory and unsupported --20
THE COURT: Yes. I sustain the objection. You hav e21
to testify to factually what happened. In other wo rds, when22
one says that one was harassed, that’s a conclusory term.23
THE WITNESS: Okay.24
THE COURT: One has to say that he kept shooting a25
cc 36
water gun in my face, or pulling my hair, or whatev er it is he1
was doing. 2
THE WITNESS: Okay.3
THE COURT: Presumably, you’re not going to say tho se4
things, but you have to say factually what occurred . The5
reason that this case is here, is for the Court to determine6
whether or not what, in fact, occurred was harassme nt. 7
Go ahead.8
THE WITNESS: All right. 9
MR. BOURS: Judge, if we could, the peace order10
statute requires that the testimony to the material must be11
something that happened within 30 days of January 9 th. In12
other words, the Court has no authority to grant a peace order13
for something that happened in 2005 or 2007, or eve n August of14
last year. 15
This peace order was applied for on January 9th. I t16
does somewhat specifically deal with something that happened on17
January 9th, but if it would help, I have a feeling Mr.18
Kimberlin wants to try to talk about things that ha ppened --19
THE COURT: Yes. It will shorten this proceeding a nd20
we can get through it very quickly. That is a stat utory21
requirement and it’s a pretty obvious reason why th at’s in the22
statute, so that we don’t have people coming to cou rt23
testifying regarding things that happened a year ag o, or six24
months ago, or two years ago.25
cc 37
So whatever you’re going to testify that he did, it1
must have occurred between December 9th and January 9th. 2
THE WITNESS: I mean I feel like I have to give a3
little background, just a slight little background, not way4
back. Just a little background.5
THE COURT: Very little background because I can’t6
consider that.7
THE WITNESS: Well, I mean one of the things I have8
to do is correct Mr. Bours’ opening statement. He said that9
Mr. Walker only got involved with me or my issues i n December10
of 2011. 11
Really what started this inquiry into Mr. Walker wa s12
I had, as stated, I had a civil case against a stal ker named13
Seth Allen that resulted in a judgment and also res ulted in a14
peace order against Mr. Allen. The reason that I g ot a peace15
order against Mr. Allen was that he had written, on August16
23rd, an e-mail to Mr. Walker and in that e-mail --17
MR. BOURS: Object.18
THE COURT: Yes. I’m going to sustain that.19
What you need to understand is that if he did what he20
is alleged to have done, between December 9th and J anuary 9th,21
and the evidence is clear and convincing, then a pe ace order22
will issue even if there was no background. It wou ldn’t23
matter. Even if you had never seen him before, if he violated24
the law such that a peace order should be issued, i t will be25
cc 38
issued. It doesn’t matter whether you had a histor y with him1
or whether you didn’t have a history with him. A p eace order2
would be appropriate.3
So it’s not important and this is a Court trial, no t4
a jury trial. The Court is not going to be influen ced by any5
history between these parties. You could have a mo rtal enemy6
living right next door and have no contact with tha t person.7
THE WITNESS: Well, I just wanted to get to how Mr.8
Walker got involved with this case or how he --9
THE COURT: But you don’t do that in your testimony . 10
If you want to talk about it in closing argument or something,11
fine, but I’m not going to have you just correct Mr . Bours. 12
You don’t have to do that. 13
THE WITNESS: Okay.14
THE COURT: What he said wasn’t evidence. What Mr.15
Bours said and what you said in your opening statem ents, that’s16
not evidence. That’s just what the parties believe the case is17
going to show. Now you have to show what you said you believe18
it was going to show, but it has to have occurred b etween19
December 9th and January 9th.20
THE WITNESS: On or about December 20th, I wrote to21
Mr. Walker, who I believed at the time was named Aa ron22
Worthing, an e-mail asking if he would cooperate in providing23
some information about a stalker that I had sued in Judge24
Jordan’s court named Seth Allen. Mr. Walker respon ded --25
cc 39
MR. BOURS: Object.1
THE COURT: Sustained. That’s hearsay.2
THE WITNESS: I went online and saw Mr. Walker’s3
response where he posted on his blog, Allergic to B ull, that4
“Brett Kimberlin, convicted terrorist and perjurer” --5
MR. BOURS: Object. Your Honor, I object.6
THE WITNESS: This is something I read.7
MR. BOURS: This is not self-authenticating.8
THE WITNESS: This is something I read and it shows9
his harassment of me.10
THE COURT: Okay. Understand something. In this11
book, Subtitle 5, these are the rules of evidence t hat this12
Court is governed by. People in the public think t hat if you13
get something off the Web, all of a sudden it’s adm issible in14
court. It couldn’t be further from the truth. It still has to15
be authenticated, like any other document.16
THE WITNESS: All right.17
THE COURT: Spiderman could be putting stuff on the18
Web. You have to be able to authenticate it and yo u can’t19
authenticate that.20
THE WITNESS: Well, I can tell you what I read and I21
can --22
THE COURT: I can’t consider what you read. These23
rules of evidence have been tested over time and th ey are there24
to protect you as well as people who are accused of doing25
cc 40
things.1
THE WITNESS: All right. Well, when Mr. Walker2
testifies, then I’ll ask him if he wrote these. 3
THE COURT: That’s up to you. I can’t tell you how4
to try the case.5
THE WITNESS: That’s the only way I can get it in.6
So I asked Mr. Walker if he would provide informati on7
about Mr. Allen and we had a -- there was a hearing set in Mr.8
Allen’s case for January 9th. During the period of December9
20th and January 9th, Mr. Walker secured the assist ance of an10
attorney. Of course, I --11
MR. BOURS: I think that’s conclusory, too. I mean12
he can provide evidence of that, but I don’t see th at he’s13
authenticated that either, that is to who did what.14
THE COURT: Let me just ask you a question. What d id15
this gentleman do to you and when did he do it?16
THE WITNESS: I’m trying to explain that. He calle d17
me terrible names and --18
THE COURT: Where was he when he called you 19
terrible --20
THE WITNESS: On his blog. 21
THE COURT: How can you prove he did that?22
THE WITNESS: Well, I prove it when he gets on the23
stand.24
THE COURT: Okay.25
cc 41
THE WITNESS: I mean he admitted that he did it. 1
It’s his blog. He writes that blog. But he was wr iting all2
this terrible stuff on his blog about me.3
THE COURT: How can you prove that? How can you4
prove that his cousin wasn’t sitting in his living room at his5
computer writing that?6
THE WITNESS: Because he said he did it.7
THE COURT: The answer to truth is because he said8
it?9
THE WITNESS: It’s his blog. He owns the blog. He10
publishes the blog. It’s his blog.11
THE COURT: I don’t think you’re understanding my12
question. How can you prove that something that co mes off my13
computer was not done by my daughter, sitting at my house,14
typing it on my computer? How can you prove that?15
THE WITNESS: Judge, because his lawyer -- he 16
filed -- the brief that he filed in Judge Rupp’s c ourt, he17
posted online. It says, “I respond to Brett Kimber lin’s motion18
and subpoenas.” That’s what he said. That’s --19
THE COURT: So if I write online “I, Mr. Kimberlin, ”20
whom I’m not, did something, sit right here now and type it21
online, post it, and somebody gets it offline, make s a copy of22
it, you think they can take that to court that I wr ote, saying23
I’m Mr. Kimberlin, they can take that to court and prove that24
you wrote that?25
cc 42
THE WITNESS: Judge, whether I can prove it or not,1
he admitted that he did it.2
THE COURT: You don’t understand something. You su ed3
somebody.4
THE WITNESS: Yes.5
THE COURT: This is a lawsuit. You brought a6
lawsuit.7
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.8
THE COURT: You have to prove those things that you9
allege in your lawsuit and you need some evidence i ndependent10
of “He admitted he did it.” Even a criminal lawyer in a room11
of prosecutors needs more evidence than that. A St ate’s12
Attorney can’t come in here and say, “Judge, this g uy is guilty13
because he said he did it.” You need more than tha t.14
THE WITNESS: Judge, you asked me what he did to me .15
THE COURT: You’re telling me something about onlin e. 16
I want to know what he did to you. How is this man harassing17
you?18
THE WITNESS: Okay.19
THE COURT: You don’t even have to read what’s20
online.21
THE WITNESS: I know. I don’t have to.22
MR. BOURS: Your Honor, may I interject for just a23
moment?24
THE COURT: Sure.25
cc 43
THE WITNESS: I don’t have to read what’s online.1
MR. BOURS: The peace order statute is very limited2
in its scope and what it says is that he may be ent itled to a3
peace order if he can show harassment under the cri minal law4
article, not some vague feeling of harassment or no t liking5
what’s being written about him. 6
But under the Criminal Law Article, Section 3-803,7
there are elements to the crime of harassment in Ma ryland law. 8
What he’s got to show, between December 9, roughly, and January9
9, is that Mr. Walker did the things described in t he criminal10
law article, not that there’s a post, or e-mails, o r anything11
else. He’s got to show what’s in that article. It ’s12
subsection A.13
THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Bours, would you give h im14
this? Let him see what the problem is. He thinks the Court is15
giving him a hard time. I want him to look at, rea d what the16
law says. I have to follow the law.17
MR. BOURS: Actually, I would give him both because18
the definition of stalking is in 3-802. 3-802 is s talking19
under the Criminal Law Article and 3-803 is the har assment20
statute.21
THE COURT: But let him read that. 22
See what it says. If he did any of those things th at23
are listed there in that section, any of those thin gs. It24
can’t be just something that’s annoying someone. I t has to be25
cc 44
one of those things that’s listed in that law, othe rwise1
different judges would be making different decision s willy2
nilly based on whether or not the judge found that it was3
harassment. 4
That’s the reason that the legislature said, “Look,5
if you’re going to get a peace order for harassment , then the6
elements of harassment will be those elements that are defined7
in the Criminal Law Article,” those things. So I h ave to find8
that he did one of those things or more than one.9
THE WITNESS: All right.10
THE COURT: Did he do any of that?11
THE WITNESS: Yes, he did.12
THE COURT: Okay. Well, let’s talk about that, whe n13
he did it and where.14
THE WITNESS: Let’s talk about it. 15
A person may not follow another in or about a publi c16
place and maliciously engage in a course of conduct that alarms17
or seriously annoys another with the intent to hara ss, alarm,18
or annoy another. That’s what he did.19
MR. BOURS: Please keep going.20
THE COURT: Yes. Read the rest, sir.21
THE WITNESS: After reasonable warning or request t o22
stop by or on the defendant and without legal purpo se. This23
section does not apply to peaceable activity intend ed to24
express political view or provide information to ot hers. A25
cc 45
person who violates this section is guilty of a mis demeanor,1
dah, dah, dah.2
THE COURT: Okay.3
THE WITNESS: Okay. So --4
THE COURT: What did he do in violation of that5
statute?6
THE WITNESS: He came to court --7
THE COURT: When?8
THE WITNESS: On January 9th.9
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.10
THE WITNESS: He had not filed his appearance in th e11
case. He was not a lawyer in the case. He was not subpoenaed12
in the case. He came before Judge Rupp. He asked to make an13
emergency motion to seal a document that I had file d in court14
identifying him as Aaron Walker rather than Aaron W orthing. I15
put enough information in my filing in the court to identify16
him so that he could not say that he was not Aaron Walker.17
He came into the court. The judge was taken aback by18
him --19
MR. BOURS: Object.20
THE COURT: Sustained.21
THE WITNESS: I have the transcript here. I can sh ow22
the Court.23
In short, the judge allowed him to seal the motion24
which identified him, asked him to sit in the spect ator’s25
cc 46
seating. Mr. Walker kept objecting --1
MR. BOURS: Object.2
THE COURT: I’ll sustain that. He can object to3
whatever. That has nothing to do with you.4
THE WITNESS: Well, the judge told him if he kept5
objecting, he would have the sheriff remove him.6
Mr. Walker -- When the hearing ended, Mr. Walker7
followed me outside the courtroom and told me that he was going8
to continue harassing me. He --9
MR. BOURS: Judge, could you instruct Mr. Kimberlin10
at least to give quotes of what was said as opposed to11
characterizations?12
THE WITNESS: I heard Mr. -- okay. I’ll say what I13
heard.14
THE COURT: You need to say exactly what he said. 15
Don’t characterize it.16
THE WITNESS: Okay. Mr. Walker said that he was17
going to continue harassing me.18
THE COURT: Well, I don’t think he said he was goin g19
to continue harassing you. He didn’t speak in thos e terms. 20
What did he say? Quote him.21
THE WITNESS: That’s what I recall.22
Then as we --23
THE COURT: You’re not understanding me. Mr. Walke r24
did not come out of that courtroom and say he is go ing to25
cc 47
continue -- he said, quote, “I” what?1
THE WITNESS: “I am going to continue to harass,2
expose,” something about that. I’m going to contin ue bothering3
you, something to that effect. I recall the word h arassment. 4
Maybe it was bothering, exposing, something to that effect.5
And as we exited the two doors, he said, “You abuse d6
the court process by using subpoenas to identify me .”7
As we continued to exit the second door, he got ver y8
loud and I felt threatened by his aggressive behavi or toward9
me. I backed up. I backed up more and more. Fina lly, I10
pulled out my iPad because I wanted to document the fact that11
he was coming at me. 12
As I lifted my iPad, Mr. Walker came to me with 13
his -- with his hand and hit me in the eye, or the face. He14
continued to come at me and wrestled with me for my iPad. 15
Fearing that my iPad would be destroyed from Mr. Wa lker’s16
conduct, I finally released it and I heard someone come behind17
me, out of the courtroom, saying, “He attacked him, he attacked18
him.”19
Two courtroom staff came running out of the courtro om20
and told Mr. Walker to get away from me, and they c alled the21
police. The -- within a very short time, eight or nine22
deputies came up to the ninth floor and Mr. Walker had my iPad23
still. He -- the deputy went over and took the iPa d away from24
him. I told the deputies that he had struck me, as saulted me. 25
cc 48
They advised me to go to the commissioner’s office and get a --1
press assault charges and to get a peace order agai nst Mr.2
Walker. That’s what happened on January 9th. I di d that. 3
Since then, I have been retaliated against. First of4
all, after that incident, I had a very distinct pro blem with my5
eyes. I had blurry vision in my eyes and --6
MR. BOURS: Object.7
THE COURT: What’s the basis of that?8
MR. BOURS: It sounds like he’s trying to give a9
medical diagnosis. There are proper ways to do tha t. But I10
think all he’s entitled to state is what my client did to him,11
not what it caused.12
THE COURT: Yes. There are no damages awarded in a13
peace order. 14
THE WITNESS: Well, I ended up at the hospital. I15
ended up at Suburban Hospital for six hours.16
THE COURT: I mean you understand you don’t get17
damages in a peace order.18
THE WITNESS: I’m not asking for damages right now. 19
THE COURT: But go ahead.20
THE WITNESS: I’m saying what happened. I had a21
terrible -- a screaming headache. I had blurry vis ion in my22
eye. I had back pain. I went to a clinic over her e on Seven23
Locks and the doctor looked at me and --24
MR. BOURS: Object.25
cc 49
THE COURT: Sustained. You can’t say what the doct or1
said.2
THE WITNESS: Well, the result was I was sent to th e3
emergency ward at Suburban Hospital where I went th ere and was4
there for approximately six hours, and had a CAT Sc an, multiple5
other evaluations --6
MR. BOURS: Judge, I object again.7
THE COURT: I sustain that. 8
You see, that has nothing to do with whether a peac e9
order is granted or not.10
THE WITNESS: You’re going to sustain the objection11
you said?12
THE COURT: Yes.13
THE WITNESS: So I had -- I was assaulted. I was - -14
I have a picture that I took. Here’s the picture t hat I took15
from my iPad and I would like to introduce that int o evidence.16
THE COURT: Well, I’ll receive it.17
THE WITNESS: And I would like to show how it18
corresponds --19
THE COURT: Taking pictures in a courthouse is20
illegal, but if you want to offer that up, I’ll rec eive it.21
THE WITNESS: Yeah. I’d like to. I mean I was22
taking a picture to protect myself.23
(The photograph was marked for24
identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit25
cc 50
No. 2 was received in evidence.)1
THE WITNESS: You know, this -- on the pictures tha t2
I introduced into evidence earlier, the same -- you can see3
also the picture of the hand coming towards me, hit ting me. 4
The following day, I took pictures of the black eye5
that I had. I would like to introduce these, too.6
THE COURT: You have to have an item marked before I7
can address it.8
THE WITNESS: Do you want to see these, either one of9
these?10
THE COURT: Have it marked first so the record show s11
what it is that the Court is considering.12
What are those, 4 and 5?13
(The photographs were marked for14
identification as Defendant's Exhibit15
Nos. 4 and 5.)16
MR. BOURS: Judge, I think he does need to testify as17
to each exhibit before they are admitted, not just hand them18
up.19
THE COURT: He hasn’t offered them yet.20
THE WITNESS: Okay. I’d like to offer them into21
evidence the exhibits.22
THE COURT: What is the number of the exhibit?23
THE WITNESS: Exhibit No. 4.24
THE COURT: What is No. 4?25
cc 51
THE WITNESS: Plaintiff’s 4 is a picture of Mr.1
Walker’s hand coming towards my face.2
THE COURT: What is No. 5?3
THE WITNESS: It’s a picture of the day after the4
event, a picture of my black eye from the assault.5
MR. BOURS: I object to that.6
THE COURT: Okay. You can have a seat. You’re7
testifying now, so have a seat.8
I’ll reserve on that.9
What else happened on that day?10
THE WITNESS: So on that day, that’s what happened. 11
I spent my evening in the hospital.12
And since then, Mr. Walker has been engaged in a13
campaign, up until the peace order was issued in th is case,14
Your Honor, in a campaign against me.15
MR. BOURS: Object to the characterization.16
THE COURT: Sustained. You have to testify as to17
what he did.18
THE WITNESS: Okay. Mr. Walker filed a criminal19
charge against me, which the District Attorney dism issed20
without even --21
MR. BOURS: Object. Object.22
THE COURT: Sustained.23
THE WITNESS: Mr. Walker also filed a peace order24
against another man named Neil Ralhouser (phonetic sp.).25
cc 52
MR. BOURS: Object.1
THE COURT: Sustained, sir. That has nothing to do2
with it. Mr. Ralhouser’s case has nothing to do wi th this3
case.4
THE WITNESS: Well, he sent the police out to my5
house to serve Mr. Ralhouser.6
MR. BOURS: Object.7
THE COURT: Well --8
THE WITNESS: That’s harassment. I mean it’s9
annoyance.10
THE COURT: You can testify that somebody came to11
your house, but you can’t testify as to what he tol d them or --12
THE WITNESS: Okay. Three deputies showed up at my13
house to serve a peace order on Neil Ralhouser and I told them14
Neil Ralhouser has never even been to my house. Mr . Walker --15
MR. BOURS: Your Honor, I object. This really isn’ t16
relevant.17
THE COURT: Sustained. It’s not. Sustained.18
THE WITNESS: Also, when I went to the peace order19
hearing on Mr. Ralhouser and told the judge what ha ppened, 20
she, she threw out the peace order against Mr. Ralh ouser.21
MR. BOURS: Object.22
THE COURT: Sustained.23
THE WITNESS: Then Mr. Worthing engaged, again, in a24
Twitter campaign against me online.25
cc 53
MR. BOURS: Object.1
THE COURT: Sustained. 2
That objection is going to sustain every time you3
characterize things like “engaged in a campaign.” If you try4
to stick to what that statute says, you won’t be dr awing5
objections.6
THE WITNESS: Mr. Walker filed a $66,000,000 lawsui t7
against me in Virginia.8
MR. BOURS: Object.9
THE WITNESS: Here’s a copy.10
THE COURT: I have no doubt that he filed a lawsuit11
against you. There’s a lawsuit --12
THE WITNESS: I’m saying --13
THE COURT: You’re being sued in Virginia. I mean14
what does that have to do with this case?15
THE WITNESS: Well, it’s retaliation. It’s just16
because I filed a peace order against him. I filed criminal17
charges against him. This is all retaliation. Tha t’s what18
it’s about.19
So that’s what Mr. Walker has done. 20
THE COURT: Sir, at Docket Entry No. 1 --21
THE WITNESS: Right.22
THE COURT: -- in this file --23
THE WITNESS: Yes.24
THE COURT: -- you have a petition for a peace orde r.25
cc 54
THE WITNESS: Right.1
THE COURT: In that petition, Docket Entry No. 1, a nd2
the Court will take judicial notice of its own plea dings in3
Case No. ending in 8444, and what you have alleged and what you4
have to prove, and the only thing you have to prove , is this. 5
In paragraph 1, the details of what happened are de scribed as6
follows, and the instructions on the form are be as specific as7
you can. What you wrote is, Mr. Walker assaulted m e while8
leaving the courtroom. He hit me in the face, ches t, and9
shoulder, and took my iPad, and threatened to --10
MR. BOURS: I believe that says to harass me more.11
THE COURT: Harass me more. That’s the limit of wh at12
you need to prove. That is exactly what you need t o prove and13
that is why this case is here.14
THE WITNESS: I think I --15
THE COURT: So do you have any other testimony as16
regards that, because that’s what you went to court for?17
THE WITNESS: Yeah. And that’s -- I believe that18
I’ve proven that. He assaulted me. It resulted in injuries. 19
I went to the hospital.20
THE COURT: On the form, it also lists, you have to21
indicate whether there was kicking, punching, choki ng,22
slapping, shooting, rape, or other things, hitting, stabbing,23
shoving, threats, and you checked shoving, threats of violence,24
harassment, and stalking. I don’t know about stalk ing, but you25
cc 55
checked those things and you have testified that he did those1
things.2
Is there anything else that he did on that day?3
THE WITNESS: Not on January 9th.4
THE COURT: Okay. You understand that you’re limit ed5
to that? That’s what you filed in court. That’s a ll the Court6
can consider is what happened on that day and that’ s what this7
appeal is from.8
Had the complaint alleged some of the conduct that9
you have testified that he engaged in, that would b e one thing. 10
I could consider it. But you don’t allege it. It’ s not there. 11
It’s a trial de novo, but it’s not a trial de novo to go back12
and bring up all the things that are not in the com plaint, that13
you didn’t file. It’s a trial de novo on the case below. You14
can’t add things when you come up here that are not in the file15
below.16
Now if there were things in here, but they were not17
argued or were not mentioned, but they are in the c omplaint,18
you wouldn’t be prohibited from bringing up those t hings. 19
Lawyers often bring up things in Circuit Court in a trial de20
novo that they realize that they didn’t argue, or d idn’t21
articulate, or didn’t point out to the court in tri al below,22
but you don’t have that here. 23
So is there anything else about that day that you24
wish to testify to before I allow Mr. Bours to cros s, if he has25
cc 56
any, on that day?1
THE WITNESS: Well, I would like to point out since2
you’ve seen the pictures, I would like to describe in the one3
picture where his hand came towards me, which is on the 4
Court --5
THE COURT: I saw that.6
THE WITNESS: And also the fact that I didn’t call7
the police. Someone else called the police to come up.8
MR. BOURS: Object to that.9
THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.10
Clearly in the photographs, the sheriffs are here. 11
THE WITNESS: Because --12
THE COURT: There are cameras in the courthouse. 13
They don’t need to be called. They’re being watche d all the14
time --15
THE WITNESS: Right.16
THE COURT: -- and there are cameras. There’s one17
right there. If I were to start flipping out on th e bench, the18
sheriffs would be here in just a few minutes. So m aybe they19
didn’t need to be called, but it’s lunch time, gent lemen.20
THE WITNESS: Oh boy.21
THE COURT: So why don’t we take a break, have lunc h,22
come back, and we’ll finish up when we come back fr om lunch.23
No witnesses in this case. There was a rule on24
witnesses and any witnesses should not speak among themselves25
cc 57
or with anyone else about their testimony.1
You can leave that unless you want to work on it. I2
mean, Mr. Bours, you can leave anything in the cour troom that3
you want to leave.4
MR. BOURS: Judge, what I’m going to do is I’m goin g5
to leave with the clerk just so I won’t be carrying this around6
all day.7
THE COURT: It will be locked.8
THE BAILIFF: All rise. The Court is in recess.9
(Recess)10
THE COURT: Thank you. Hope you had a good lunch. 11
Thanks. Have a seat, please.12
Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Bours?13
MR. BOURS: Yes. I believe Mr. Kimberlin is finish ed14
on his direct examination.15
THE COURT: Okay. Do you want him to take the stan d?16
MR. BOURS: Please.17
CROSS-EXAMINATION18
BY MR. BOURS:19
Q Sir, if you would, please, you may just simply tur n20
those documents over. You are not required to refe r to them. 21
If you need to refresh your recollection about some thing in22
order to give an answer, say so before you look at documents.23
First thing I want to ask you is, I notice that you24
brought with you this laptop of some sort. It’s an Apple25
cc 58
product, is it not?1
A Yes, sir.2
Q Is that called an iBook?3
A No. That’s a MacBook.4
Q A MacBook. The MacBook is actually like a laptop5
computer, is that correct?6
A Yes, sir.7
Q It’s different from an iPad?8
A Yes, sir.9
Q Did you bring the iPad with you today?10
A No, sir.11
Q You did have an iPad with you on January 9th, thou gh,12
when you appeared before Judge Rupp on motions, is that13
correct?14
A Yes, sir. Yes, sir.15
Q Why specifically did you bring an iPad to court on16
January 9th?17
A Well, there were notes in there that I had taken f or18
the court proceedings.19
Q Pardon me?20
A There were notes in the iPad that I had taken for the21
court proceedings and it’s very easy to carry.22
Q But did you bring this MacBook?23
A No. The reason I brought that today was because i t24
has the video on it and video can’t -- I couldn’t g et -- I mean25
cc 59
that video is a strange video and I could not get i t on the1
iPad.2
Q Okay.3
A So I brought -- I loaded it on this one.4
Q Now the iPad you brought with you on January 9th h ad5
a camera in it, correct?6
A Yes, sir.7
Q Tell the Court physically how you operate that cam era8
from the iPad.9
A It’s just one button. Just one button.10
Q Are you talking like an icon that you push and it11
activates the camera?12
A I believe so. It’s -- the camera is actually a pa rt13
of the iPad and so if you just hold the iPad up, an d you don’t14
have to even focus it or anything. You just push t he button15
and it takes the picture.16
Q So are you saying on the iPad, when you push the17
button on the iPad --18
A On the i --19
Q -- it actually takes the picture?20
A Well, I mean if it’s on. You just push the icon a nd21
it takes a picture. Right.22
Q Was your iPad on when you walked out of the courtr oom23
on January 9th?24
A I believe I had it on during the session just in c ase25
cc 60
I needed to refer to notes. Uh-huh. They last -- the battery1
lasts a long time.2
Q But the proceedings were completely finished in fr ont3
of Judge Rupp that day, correct?4
A Excuse me?5
Q The proceedings had completely finished, is that6
right?7
A I believe I had it on during the proceedings, yeah ,8
just as a -- when you say on, I mean the cover is c losed. The9
iPad that I had has a cover that closes and puts it to -- it’s10
kind of to sleep when it’s closed. So the iPad was technically11
on, but the cover was closed. So in other words --12
Q So it would have been closed when you walked out o f13
the courtroom?14
A Exactly. Uh-huh.15
Q The hearing that day was designed to get damages16
against Mr. Allen or a contempt citation against Mr . Allen, the17
defendant in that case, for continuing to interfere with your18
business and --19
A And for violation of the court order. Uh-huh.20
Q In order to support the claim that he had done tha t,21
didn’t you ask that the identity of Aaron Worthing be22
established so you could subpoena him as a witness?23
A Yes, I did.24
Q Then you learned who Aaron Worthing was, the blogg er25
cc 61
Aaron Worthing was, is that correct?1
A Not through the court proceedings.2
Q I understand that, but how and when did you learn3
that?4
A I learned it on December 31st.5
Q How?6
A I got a tip, anonymous tip.7
Q An anonymous tip via the internet, e-mail, or what ?8
A Yes. It was actually by phone.9
Q By telephone?10
A Uh-huh.11
Q After you received that information, what did you do12
with it?13
A I tried to verify it. I did Google searches and14
tried to verify that, in fact, Mr. Walker was Aaron Worthing15
and vice versa, and I was able to locate a bunch of -- a lot of16
documents online that made me comfortable that Aaro n Walker was17
actually Aaron Worthing.18
Q Pending before the Court, in that civil action19
against Mr. Allen, was a motion to require Google t o disclose20
the identity of Mr. Worthing, is that correct?21
A Right. Right.22
Q So after you learned the information December 31st ,23
you filed a request to withdraw that motion, is tha t right?24
A Yes, because I had already learned the information . 25
cc 62
I didn’t want to take up the Court’s time with a mo tion that1
was basically moot.2
Q But in the motion you filed to withdraw, you put a ll3
that information in your motion, didn’t you?4
A Not all of it. I have a lot more information that I5
didn’t put in there. I put his name, his address, where he6
worked, where he went to school, and things like th at so that7
there would be no question that he was that person.8
Q That’s what you say your motive was, but, in fact,9
that put it in a public record, is that correct?10
A Well, it’s a court case.11
Q And you knew that that made it public by your fili ng12
it there, correct?13
A I filed it in a court case. I didn’t make it -- I14
didn’t go public with it. I haven’t done that.15
Q Prior to your doing that, Mr. Worthing, through an16
attorney named Kingsley, had filed an opposition to disclosure17
of his identity, had he not?18
A It’s a she. Kingsley is a she.19
Q Worthing. Let’s assume Worthing is a he.20
A Okay.21
Q Through Beth Kingsley, a motion had been filed22
opposing the disclosure of his true identity, corre ct?23
A Right. And the judge was going to have a -- I24
believe that the judge was going to have a hearing on that on25
cc 63
the 9th and because I found out that information th rough other1
means and verified that information through online sources --2
Q This is really kind of a simple proposition, Mr.3
Kimberlin.4
A Okay.5
Q You were trying to find out the identity through6
court processes. That was being opposed by an atto rney named7
Beth Kingsley on --8
A Right.9
Q -- behalf of the anonymous blogger Aaron Worthing.10
A Right.11
Q That was all going on.12
A Right.13
Q In other words, they were opposing the identity be ing14
revealed, correct?15
A Right. 16
Q And opposing your subpoena for him to be a witness .17
A Yeah. That’s basically the motion. It was a moti on18
to quash.19
Q So then you filed in the jacket all the identifyin g20
information about him and you withdrew the motion b efore Judge21
Rupp, is that correct?22
A Yeah. I -- yeah. I let the judge know that it wa s23
moot and this is why.24
Q You agree, I think you even said on your direct, t hat25
cc 64
this gentleman to my left came to court and asked t hat your1
motion to withdraw be sealed because it contained h is identity,2
correct?3
A Yes. And the judge granted that motion.4
Q But you still had your iPad with you and you tried to5
take a photograph of him outside the courtroom, did n’t you?6
A That’s not the series of events. I would not have7
taken --8
Q Well, you did try to take a photograph with your9
iPad.10
A Yeah. I did take a photograph. I did take a11
photograph.12
Q It’s the one you put in evidence.13
A Exactly.14
Q You claim you took that only because he was attack ing15
you?16
A No. He was -- he was being an aggressor. He was17
verbally aggressive and physically aggressive towar d me, and he18
was coming at me, and I felt that in order to memor ialize that19
aggressive behavior, I took a picture. And I’m ver y well aware20
of the rule requiring -- I mean prohibiting photos in the21
courthouse and so --22
Q You are now or you were then?23
A No. Of course I was then. 24
And I talked to the deputies when they came up and I25
cc 65
told them that I had taken a picture, and --1
2 Q Let's stop here because I want to focus on something.
3 January 9th is the first day you ever saw this gentleman to my
4 left in person, is that correct?
5
6
A
Q
Yes.
You had never seen a picture of him, had you, on his
7 blog or anywhere else?
8
9
A
Q
No.
You've never seen him in any other public place, but
10 a courthouse, have you?
11
12
A
Q
No.
Since January 9th, the only times you've ever seen
13 him have been in connection with court proceedings either you
14 or he filed, correct?
15
16
A
Q
Yes.
Based on what you found out about him December 31st,
17 you understand he lives in Manassas, Virginia?
18
19
A
Q
Yes, sir.
Just state for the record your home address, where
20 you actually live.
21
22
23
24
25
A
Q
A
Q
A
I live in Bethesda.
Would you give us the address?
1111111111111111111111., Bethesda, Maryland.
Do you go to an office or a place of work everyday?
Yes.
cc 66
Q Where is that?1
A It’s in Cabin John, Maryland.2
Q In Cabin John and not Washington, D.C.?3
A No.4
Q Well, when you asked for protection through this5
peace order, you left it open that he couldn’t see you6
anywhere, is that correct?7
A Well, I mean that was actually because the8
commissioner -- I believe it was the commissioner o r the judge,9
one of the two, suggested that that would be a good thing to10
do.11
Q But other than in courtrooms or court settings12
involving legal proceedings, you’ve never seen this gentleman13
to my left at all, right?14
A Never.15
Q He, to your knowledge, has never followed you arou nd16
in a public place other than the limited time that you saw him17
here on January 9th where he came out of the courtr oom behind18
you, correct?19
A No. He’s done a lot of blogging about me.20
Q No, sir. I’m talking about in person.21
A No. He followed me out of that courtroom.22
Q But that’s the only time. You don’t claim any oth er23
time that he has followed you in a public place, co rrect?24
A Well, I don’t know. I really don’t know.25
cc 67
Q Do you have any witnesses here who can say that he1
did that?2
A That he followed me?3
Q Yes.4
A No. I can say --5
Q Before the judge showed you the book today that ha d6
the statutes about stalking and harassment under th e Criminal7
Code, had you ever read those before?8
A Yes. Uh-huh.9
Q Define how he has stalked you within the meaning o f10
the statute.11
A Well, within the meaning of the statute, I don’t12
know. I just know that he has bullied me. He’s ha rassed me13
online. He’s written terrible things about me. He ’s called me14
terrible names.15
Q Well, the terrible things he’s written about you d eal16
with your criminal background, correct?17
A No, not necessarily. I mean if he calls me human --18
Q Well, besides your criminal background, what has h e19
talked about?20
A If he calls me human filth, I’m not human filth. I’m21
a father. I’m a husband. I’m the director of a no nprofit. 22
I’m a human being. I’m not human filth. That’s wh at he called23
me online. And he told people not to donate to my nonprofits24
or he would seek criminal and civil penalties again st them.25
cc 68
Q That’s what you believe based on things you can’t1
authenticate, correct?2
A Okay. When he gets on -- when he gets on the stan d,3
we’ll find out, okay.4
Q Sir, what I’m asking you is did you ever see him d o5
any of the acts that are described in the statute o n stalking?6
A The statute on harassment.7
Q So you admit there is no stalking within the meani ng8
of that statute?9
A Well, possibly. I didn’t say that -- when I read the10
statute over here a minute ago, I said that he had met the11
harassment statute.12
Q Do you have any other testimony yourself or any13
witnesses here about the other elements of the stat ute on14
harassment?15
A The other elements?16
Q Yes.17
A You mean by the fact that he followed me in a publ ic18
place, and he assaulted me in a public place, and t hat he19
retaliated against me after that with --20
Q No. I mean did you read the statute today and do you21
have any other evidence to offer about those issues ?22
A Any other evidence other than the fact that he23
attacked --24
Q No. Not the fact that he -- evidence, an25
cc 69
observation, things you saw or heard in person, not things you1
read on a Web site or anything else.2
A Like I said, Mr. Walker assaulted me, followed me out3
of the courtroom, and attacked me.4
Q In connection with the assault, will you tell this5
Judge now in what manner he assaulted you? Give us a concise,6
but complete statement of the ways in which he assa ulted you on7
January 9th.8
A Well, as I said, he -- when he came out of the9
courtroom, he was berating me with comments, and be ing10
aggressive, and coming toward me. And I felt threa tened, so I11
pulled the iPad out to catch him, because I could s ee that he12
was getting ready to actually physically hit me, an d I backed13
up and clicked the picture. I got his hand as it w as coming14
toward me and it hit me some -- somehow it hit me i n the eye. 15
I mean everything happened very quickly. And he st arted16
wrestling with me and I felt bumps on my side, my c hest, and my17
back twisted. 18
And he’s wrestling me for the iPad and he actually19
took the iPad away from me. And I didn’t want to s truggle with20
the iPad too much because I was afraid it would bre ak, and my21
kids use that iPad a lot and I didn’t want to disap point them,22
so I let it go. And he -- then the man --23
Q Let me try a couple of things here.24
A Okay.25
cc 70
Q Did he knock you down?1
A No. He hit me.2
Q He hit you?3
A Well, his hand hit me. His hand hit me. Whether it4
was his fingers or his hand like this, I don’t know , but I --5
Q Are you claiming that he hit you with his fist?6
A No. I don’t know if it was -- I can’t say it was a7
fist. I can say it was a hand.8
Q Isn’t it really a fact that he was just holding up9
his hand so you couldn’t take a photograph of him?10
A Absolutely not. Absolutely not.11
Q And then he grabbed the iPad from you and walked a way12
from you?13
A No, sir. I -- no, sir. Not at all.14
Q That’s not a fact?15
A That’s not a fact at all. I mean I --16
Q Now you’ve apparently watched the video?17
A Yes.18
Q Do you claim the video supports what you’ve just t old19
us?20
A Exactly. Yeah.21
Q Let’s take it in order, after this happened, what you22
did next. Are you telling us the sheriffs suggeste d that you23
file charges and a peace order or --24
A No. No.25
cc 71
Q -- they said that’s what you would have to do beca use1
they didn’t see it?2
A No. When they came up, I -- when they came up fro m3
the elevator, I met them, and walked them over, and I pointed4
to Mr. Walker. 5
I said, that man hit me, and he’s got my iPad, and6
can you arrest him for assault. 7
And they said, well, we didn’t see it. We can’t8
arrest him for assault right now. You’ll have to g o to the9
commissioner’s office.10
I said, well, where’s the commissioner’s office.11
And they said, it’s across the street at the Distri ct12
Court.13
And I mean there was more of a conversation but14
basically they escorted me to --15
Q But they didn’t tell you that they thought you sho uld16
do that, they just told you how to do it?17
A No. They said that if he assaulted -- if he hit m e,18
then I should go and --19
Q You should go?20
A Yes. Because they could --21
Q Not that that’s the only recourse you had?22
A Yeah. Because they couldn’t arrest him because th ey23
didn’t see it. That’s what they said.24
Q So when you went to the commissioner’s office, you25
cc 72
went over to the new District Court building at 191 East1
Jefferson?2
A Yes, sir.3
Q You dealt with the peace order and the criminal4
charges at the same time?5
A I believe so.6
MR. BOURS: Court’s indulgence.7
BY MR. BOURS:8
Q This is going to be Respondent’s Exhibit No. 4 for9
identification. For explanation purposes, it’s a c ertified10
court record of the District Court of Maryland.11
(The document referred to was marked12
as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 4 for13
identification.)14
A Okay.15
Q I put the exhibit sticker or the clerk has put the16
exhibit sticker on this page, statement of charges.17
A Uh-huh.18
Q I want to ask if the application for statement of19
charges is in your handwriting.20
A Yes, it is.21
Q Did you sign it on the last page of this exhibit?22
A Yes. Uh-huh.23
Q Did anyone make any suggestions on what you were t o24
put in this?25
cc 73
A Just, I think, what we were talking about, the1
employment thing, to leave that kind of amorphous.2
Q This is the application for the criminal charge.3
A Oh.4
Q Did anybody tell you what to put in here?5
A No. Not that I know of.6
Q Did you make an effort to be accurate with what yo u7
put in here?8
A I assume that it was accurate since it was pretty9
much at the time.10
Q Did you sign it under oath?11
A Yes.12
Q Under the penalties of perjury?13
A Yes.14
Q You are the same Brett Kimberlin that was convicte d15
of perjury back in 1980, correct?16
A Yeah. When I was a teenager.17
Q Actually, it was after you turned 18, wasn’t it, M r.18
Kimberlin?19
A I was a teenager.20
Q You were involved in a teenage distribution issue or21
a conspiracy to distribute 10,000 pounds of marijua na, right?22
A No. That wasn’t that. It had nothing to do with23
that.24
Q It had nothing to do with that?25
cc 74
A No.1
Q But it was perjury before the Grand Jury, right?2
A Yeah. It was, like I said, I was 19.3
Q Nineteen. And you were supposed to testify about the4
circumstances of that 10,000 pounds of marijuana, r ight?5
A No. That had nothing to do with that.6
Q That was part of your plea bargain was that you we re7
testifying in front of the Grand Jury.8
A No. No. It had nothing to do with that.9
Q But you were convicted?10
A Of what?11
Q Perjury in connection with that and you served tim e12
in jail on that, didn’t you?13
A Yeah.14
Q As an adult.15
A Eighteen days.16
Q You were subsequently involved in this case where17
bombs were set off and people were hurt, correct, k nown as the18
Speedway Bomb?19
A Yeah.20
Q You were convicted of a number of counts on that,21
correct?22
A Yeah.23
Q And a man who was injured in those bombings actual ly24
killed himself because of his severe injuries, corr ect?25
cc 75
A I have no evidence of that. I have no information1
about that.2
Q You were sued for it and there was $1,000,0003
judgment in favor of his widow against you, right?4
A Yes.5
Q It was a condition of federal parole that you pay6
that judgment, correct?7
A You’re getting into nuances.8
Q Well, it’s not a nuance that your parole was revok ed9
because you didn’t, is that correct?10
A Not exactly, but again --11
Q You filed appeals in connection with that, correct ?12
A Yes.13
Q I’ll come back to that.14
Besides this and the peace order, did you swear und er15
oath to anybody else about the events of January 9t h?16
A What do you mean to anyone else?17
Q Did you file any other applications, or civil suit s,18
or anything else involving the events of January 9t h?19
A The peace order.20
Q Now that same day -- and, by the way, according to21
the documentation, it was about 12:39 when you got the charges22
of assault. Does that sound about right?23
A Approximately.24
Q There wasn’t any delay. You had to run across the25
cc 76
street.1
A No. I went straight over there.2
MR. BOURS: Judge, I’m going to offer Respondent’s3
Exhibit No. 4. Could I explain that I don’t know i t happened,4
but when District Court put together this certifica tion, they5
included somebody else’s case.6
THE COURT: It happens.7
MR. BOURS: Don’t know how, but this is all part of8
one certification and that’s the relevance.9
THE COURT: I see that more times than you would10
guess. 11
Number 5? 12
(The item marked for identification as13
Defendant's Exhibit No. 4 was received14
in evidence.)15
BY MR. BOURS:16
Q Later in the afternoon on January 9th, did you sen d17
an e-mail to Beth Kingsley?18
A Probably.19
Q Did you use Justice Through Music as your return o n20
e-mail?21
A Yes. Uh-huh.22
Q Do you want to look at this? The top is irrelevan t,23
but is that your e-mail to Beth Kingsley?24
A Uh-huh. Yeah.25
cc 77
Q In that e-mail, did you say, I just finished press ing1
charges against him for assault and battery and got a peace2
order against him. Nine deputies had to back him o ff. He3
decked me in the face, hit me in the shoulder and c hest, pushed4
me, grabbed my iPad away from me, and wrestled me.5
A That’s true.6
Q You say that’s true and that’s also what you put i n7
the e-mail to her, correct?8
A Right. Uh-huh.9
MR. BOURS: I want to offer No. 5.10
THE COURT: It will be received.11
(The item marked for identification as12
Defendant’s's Exhibit No. 5 was13
received in evidence.)14
BY MR. BOURS:15
Q You have become aware that this gentleman is an16
attorney, correct?17
A Yes.18
Q You also became aware, subsequent to the events of19
January 9th, that the State’s Attorney for Montgome ry County20
was not going to prosecute the criminal case, is th at right?21
A Yeah. Had a long talk with him. They said that22
since there’s a peace order, that they didn’t think that --23
Q Excuse me. Excuse me. 24
A Okay.25
cc 78
Q I want to show you an exhibit. There’s no pending1
question.2
A Okay. All right.3
Q Defendant’s Exhibit No. 6, a certified copy. Did you4
see a copy of this sometime prior to the time when the case was5
dropped?6
A No. I never saw that.7
Q You never saw it?8
A Uhn-uh.9
Q I’ll show you what is marked Defendant’s Exhibit 710
for identification, a certified copy of a motion. 11
A Yeah. So what are you showing me?12
Q Is this genuine and did you file it?13
A Yeah. Uh-huh.14
Q But you’re saying you never saw No. 6?15
A I don’t think I ever saw that. No. I mean I talk ed16
to them and they told me they were dismissing it.17
Q So --18
A I think that --19
Q You styled your pleading Victim Complainant Brett20
Kimberlin’s Motion in Opposition to State’s Motion to Nolle21
Prosse this case?22
A Yeah. They told me they were going to nolle pross e23
it.24
Q But you’re understanding is you never saw the line25
cc 79
where they said they were nolle prossing it?1
A No. I never saw that.2
MR. BOURS: Judge, I’d like to offer 6 and 7, if I3
may.4
THE COURT: They will be received.5
(The documents marked for6
identification as Defendant's Exhibit7
Nos. 6 and 7 were received in8
evidence.)9
BY MR. BOURS:10
Q Mr. Kimberlin, prior to filing that, did you know11
that the State has a right to drop cases?12
A Yeah. I had a very long talk with the lady there and13
she told me that there’s --14
Q Excuse me. Prior to filing the motion that is par t15
of No. 7, did you know the State had the absolute r ight to drop16
a case?17
A Absolutely. Of course.18
Q So in other words, you filed this multi-page19
opposition to their absolute right to drop the case and put20
that in a public record, is that correct?21
A I filed it because I didn’t want them to drop the22
charges. That’s why I filed it. And I felt like I wanted to23
get it before a judge and make my case before a jud ge and I24
thought that I would be able to have that motion he ard. I was25
cc 80
also in touch with several people and they said yes , including1
the victim’s advocate. I talked at long length wit h the2
victim’s advocate and she suggested that I file tha t motion.3
Q She? What’s her name?4
A Donna Becker (phonetic sp.).5
Q She told you could file an opposition in the court6
file?7
A Yeah. Uh-huh.8
Q Sir, isn’t it a fact that this is just part of you r9
ongoing campaign, your campaign, to put materials a bout my10
client in public records so that other people can l ook at them11
and potentially put him in danger?12
A Oh come on. I -- the State’s Attorney called me u p13
and had a long talk with me.14
Q Excuse me. Could you answer my question?15
A That’s totally false.16
Q You are putting these things in public records --17
A That’s totally false. She told me -- she actually18
told me, she said --19
Q She who?20
A The lady that I was talking to, um --21
Q Margaret Schweitzer (phonetic sp.)?22
A No. 23
The lady that I was talking to said I could make a24
plea to Margaret Schweitzer or John McCarthy (phone tic sp.) to25
cc 81
prosecute, and that I could go to court, and that s he would1
give me time, a whole week, to make my plea, to go to John2
McCarthy or Schweitzer and make my case. And the n olle prosse3
motion was filed within two days after she talked t o me. I4
felt like they had misled me.5
Q Okay.6
A And I did write a long letter --7
Q There’s no pending question at this point.8
You do admit that, other than court proceedings, yo u9
have not seen Mr. Walker any other time?10
A No.11
MR. BOURS: Judge, I’d like to reserve, potentially ,12
the right to call him again, but I have no further questions at13
this time.14
THE COURT: Very well.15
Any other witnesses, sir?16
MR. KIMBERLIN: I have no other witnesses. I would17
just like to make a point about two things that he brought up18
during the cross. 19
The first has to do with the policy on phones. I w as20
aware of the -- I mean on photographs. I was aware of the21
policy before I went to court. I did not take pict ures of Mr.22
Walker in the courtroom. If I wanted a, quote, pic ture of him,23
I could have taken it surreptitiously many times, y ou know, if24
that’s what my motive was. 25
cc 82
The only picture that I got was that picture of him1
coming at me with the hand. That certainly -- and the policy2
specifically says violation of the rule. Security personnel or3
other court personnel may confiscate or retain an e lectronic4
device that is used in violation of Maryland Rule 1 6-110,5
subject to further order of the Court or until the owner leaves6
the building.7
I understood that and when the police came up, I to ld8
them that I had taken a picture. I showed them the iPad and9
they did not take the iPad from me. They, you know -- Mr.10
Walker is not a security personnel. He’s not a cou rt11
personnel. He had no right to confiscate my iPad. He took it12
from me. You know, if he didn’t want me taking a p icture, he13
could have stopped right there and said, I’m going to go tell14
the court personnel that Mr. Kimberlin took a pictu re or15
whatever.16
THE COURT: Hold on a second. You’re into argument17
now.18
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.19
THE COURT: Have you rested your case?20
MR. KIMBERLIN: No. The other thing that Mr. --21
THE COURT: You’re giving factual testimony.22
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. I’m just trying to respond t o23
something that he said. I was trying to --24
THE COURT: Okay.25
cc 83
MR. KIMBERLIN: I was misusing the court process or1
something to identify Mr. Walker.2
THE COURT: For the record, I’ll consider this3
redirect testimony.4
Go ahead.5
REDIRECT EXAMINATION6
THE WITNESS: Mr. Walker had been involved with Set h7
Allen’s case for a long time and Judge Jordan issue d a court8
order that allowed me to take further discovery in the form of9
interrogatories, and I propounded interrogatories t o Mr. Aaron10
Worthing but I couldn’t find him. I didn’t know wh o he was. 11
He professed to be an attorney. I looked on all th e legal12
Martindale-Hubbells and all this, trying to find ou t who Aaron13
Worthing was. There was no Aaron Worthing. So tha t’s why I14
filed a motion with the Court to order the identity of Mr.15
Worthing so that I could serve him with the interro gatories16
that Judge Jordan had ordered and allowed. That’s a simple17
fact. 18
It had nothing to do with, quote, out him or identi fy19
him, or some nefarious purposes that I’m being accu sed of. I20
have never published his name in any way, shape, or form. I21
don’t blog myself. I don’t Tweet myself. I don’t comment on22
blogs myself. So for him to say that was my motiva tion is not23
right.24
THE COURT: All right.25
cc 84
Any other witnesses?1
MR. KIMBERLIN: No, sir.2
THE COURT: Is the petition addressed?3
MR. BOURS: I’m going to ask that you make a findin g4
now that the petitioner has not met, even initially , the burden5
of proof required under the statute. There’s a par t of this, I6
assume, that he’s just completely unaware and there ’s just been7
no testimony in support of it. A final peace order requires a8
showing that one of the acts that is prohibited und er Section9
3-1503 has occurred and that it’s likely to recur. The statute10
in question is (c)(II). It’s 3-1505(c)(1)(ii), fin al peace11
orders.12
If the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence13
that the respondent has committed one of the acts i n the first14
statute and is likely to commit in the future an ac t specified15
in 3-1503(a) of the subtitle against the petitioner , then you16
can issue the peace order.17
Now I don’t think you should find, ultimately, that18
there’s clear and convincing evidence that any act, including19
assault, has occurred. Certainly, there’s no proof of20
harassment which was the basis of the District Cour t order21
under that statute. On top of that, there is absol utely no22
evidence at all that this man is likely to commit i n the future23
an act specified in 3-1503. There’s just no testim ony at all24
and without that, the Court can’t grant a peace ord er. This is25
cc 85
a peace order that should never have been issued wh en you get1
right down to it. There’s certainly no support for harassment.2
I put the statute back up there, but -- oh. It’s3
Courts and Judicial Proceedings, Your Honor. I’m s orry.4
THE COURT: 3-15 what?5
MR. BOURS: 3-1505(c)(ii). 6
This is very different from protective orders in a7
family case. I mean you don’t even get one bite in the family8
case. If you hit somebody, you can have a protecti ve order9
issued against you.10
THE COURT: Okay.11
MR. KIMBERLIN: May I respond?12
MR. BOURS: So in that -- 13
THE COURT: Sure.14
MR. BOURS: Based on the law, I think you can find,15
at this point, that the petitioner has not met the required16
standard of proof in any respect for the Court to i ssue a peace17
order. We don’t need to go any further.18
THE COURT: Have you rested? You weren’t calling a ny19
other witnesses, correct?20
MR. KIMBERLIN: No. I’ve rested, but I’d like to21
respond to what he just said about future.22
THE COURT: I have to let you respond. I can’t not23
have you respond. 24
MR. KIMBERLIN: Thank you.25
cc 86
THE COURT: I want you to respond and I’ll hear fro m1
you. Go ahead.2
MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. 3
Now he talks about the future and this is not likel y4
to occur. The problem with his argument is that fo llowing the5
January 9th assault, you know, if Mr. Walker had sa id, I6
apologize, everything is cool, leave me alone, I le ave you7
alone, fine. That’s all I’ve ever asked of him is to just8
leave me alone. But he didn’t. He filed a crimina l charge9
against me. He filed a $66,000,000 --10
MR. BOURS: Objection. That’s not in evidence.11
MR. KIMBERLIN: You’re talking about the future. 12
You’re saying --13
THE COURT: No objection. This is argument.14
MR. KIMBERLIN: But he’s talking about the future,15
whether it’s likely to occur. Its already occurred , you know. 16
Maybe not an assault, but --17
THE COURT: But you understand that what has to occ ur18
is what is prohibited by 1-503(a), those things tha t are19
prohibited in the peace order statute, stalking, an noying. 20
Those are the things that, assault in any degree, a n act that21
places petitioner in fear of serious bodily harm. Those22
things.23
What evidence is there that any of the things that24
are prohibited in Section 3-1503 is likely to re-oc cur? If you25
cc 87
notice, it does not say here that the respondent ma y not file a1
lawsuit, may not press criminal charges. Those thi ngs are not2
prohibited. First of all, they cannot be prohibite d. A person3
has a right if they want to -- because we’re not he re to4
litigate the lawsuit. I know you understand what i ts contents5
are, but that civil law case may or may not stand o n its own6
merit even if this proceeding never occurred.7
MR. KIMBERLIN: No. I know.8
THE COURT: So I cannot prohibit someone, in a9
procedure like this, from filing a lawsuit.10
MR. KIMBERLIN: I’m not saying that. I’m saying th at11
his future conduct. He has already shown that he - - and he’s12
already Tweeted and blogged that in the last couple of weeks13
that as soon as this case is dismissed by you, that he’s going14
to come out again after me on his blogs. 15
The only thing that’s stopped him is this peace16
order. That’s it. Once the judge issued the final peace order17
in this case, the harassment stopped. The Tweets s topped. All18
that stuff stopped, you know. I haven’t had to wor ry about my19
kids reading about me online from something that ha ppened 3420
years ago. I have a right to be a human being.21
THE COURT: I couldn’t prohibit that even if that 22
had --23
MR. KIMBERLIN: No. No.24
THE COURT: -- even if you had gone to court, filed a25
cc 88
petition, and said in your petition that the respon dent is1
saying things about you online and exposing your hi story2
online. 3
Even if you had said those things, I don’t know tha t4
this statute would permit this Court to find that t o be clear5
and convincing evidence of violation of the statute .6
MR. KIMBERLIN: You know, I’m saying that this show s7
his future, possible future. I feel a threat from him. I8
personally feel that threat everyday. I’ve got my kids and9
wife, you know, looking out for him everyday, wheth er they’re10
going to see Virginia license plates show up, you k now. He11
talks about, on his blog, his Second Amendment righ ts, you12
know, and how he’ll invoke them, and how he carries a weapon,13
and all this stuff. This is what I worry about. A nd him14
inciting people.15
He’s got people that comment on his blog that talk16
about, you know, coming and killing me and stuff li ke that. 17
And this is what I worry about, him inciting somebo dy by18
talking about something that happened 34, 40 years ago, you19
know, and blaming me just like his lawyer did for o uting him,20
you know, when he had -- it was his blog. 21
It wasn’t my blog. He published all these things. I22
didn’t publish anything. I’ve never published one single word23
about him ever.24
So this is what I’m worried about.25
cc 89
JUDGE’S RULING1
I have no doubt what you’re worried about and I2
understand your concern, but you sound like a very intelligent3
person. You do understand that the Court must foll ow the law4
and that if any of these things that are prohibited by this5
statute, not in your language, not in your interpre tation of6
them, but what this book says, any of those things, obviously7
are prohibited, any of the things that the statute says.8
A petitioner may seek relief under this subtitle by9
filing with the Court or with the commissioner, und er the10
circumstances specified in this subtitle, a petitio n that11
alleges the commission of any of the following acts against the12
petitioner by the respondent, if the act occurred w ithin 3013
days before the filing of the petition. 14
An act that causes serious bodily harm. We don’t15
have that. That’s the reason why, on cross, Mr. Bo urs very16
carefully questioned you as regards where his clien t’s hands17
were, what he did with his hands, and so forth. So we don’t18
have an act that caused serious bodily harm.19
Number two, an act that places the petitioner in fe ar20
of imminent serious bodily harm. We don’t have tha t. We don’t21
have anything that occurred on January 9th that pla ced him in22
fear of imminent serious bodily harm. What, in fac t, was done23
is that, for the record, I’ll say a camera device o r a device24
capable of taking a photograph was snatched away fr om the25
cc 90
petitioner. 1
Three, an assault in any degree. Now let me just2
say, parenthetically, that I’ll come back to the as sault,3
because technically snatching your iPad out of your hand is an4
assault. I’ll come back to that. So that did occu r. 5
I’m not going to address rape, sexual offense, and so6
forth. There’s clearly no evidence of that and it’ s not7
present here.8
False imprisonment. You weren’t prohibited from9
leaving a place.10
Stalking. Following a person one time out of a11
building or out of a room certainly doesn’t constit ute12
stalking. If it did, we would need a whole docket to deal with13
nothing but that. Stalking is more than that. Sta lking is a14
persistent pattern of conduct which involves follow ing someone15
or showing up where they are for no apparent reason other than16
the fact that that person is present. So we don’t have that.17
Trespass. The encounter, as it were, occurred in a18
public place. A courthouse is a public place. 19
Malicious destruction of property. Well, the iPad20
wasn’t slammed to the floor, or like the fellow did down in21
Alabama, there was no bullet fired through a comput er or22
anything. It was just taken from the respondent an d given back23
to its rightful owner, the petitioner, here in the court.24
The contents of the petition shall be under oath an d25
cc 91
they shall allege that some of that conduct that I just read1
occurred. 2
What occurred? An item was snatched from your hand s. 3
If this was an assault trial, perhaps the evidence would be4
sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt, without addre ssing5
possible defenses, that an assault did occur. Obvi ously6
wrestling something from somebody, he assaulted you . That7
occurred. He did. He assaulted you.8
MR. KIMBERLIN: He also hit me.9
THE COURT: Okay. Assume arguendo that that10
occurred, but your own testimony would suggest that that11
touching, you said with the hand, or a thumb, or so me part of12
his hand, you don’t remember exactly which, but tha t happened13
in the course of this what I would refer to was a m elee, which14
he was attempting to take your iPad from you. So t hat evidence15
is clear and convincing, but the Court needs to fin d more than16
that.17
The Court needs to find that there’s evidence that18
he’s going to do this again. Well, first of all, w e don’t have19
a crystal ball. We don’t know. There’s no evidenc e to suggest20
that he’s going to do this again. The evidence tha t you21
testified about and that you argued that the respon dent did may22
be annoying. Some of it may even violate other sta tutes that23
are not before this Court. I’m not suggesting that they do,24
but the law cannot prohibit all annoying conduct. We’ve25
cc 92
reached a point in this society where people think they have a1
right not to be offended. Where did that come from ? You read2
about it everyday in the paper. Somebody is offend ed by3
something and wants somebody to apologize. Where d id that come4
from? Where is the right not to be offended?5
So there’s a lot of annoying conduct that perhaps6
might be rude and would cause Emily Post to turn ov er in her7
grave. I don’t know if she’s still alive or not, b ut 8
manners -- and just for the record, I am not sugges ting that9
the respondent doesn’t have proper manners or anyth ing like10
that. But what I am saying are examples of annoyin g conduct,11
things that people can do that are just annoying. 12
This Court doesn’t blog. I don’t even know what it13
is. I wouldn’t know how to set-up one and I don’t know if I’ve14
even read one since I don’t know what it is, but I can imagine15
it is a medium in which published material can be m ade16
available to the public. I can imagine that a blog might be17
likened to a magazine except that it’s electronic a nd it’s not18
on paper, unless of course it’s printed out. 19
You say that things have been written about you tha t20
are not right. It is a dangerous, dangerous argume nt to make21
that a sanction should be entered against people wh en they22
choose to exercise their First Amendment constituti onal rights23
just because it’s annoying. 24
Now let me say, parenthetically, there are civil25
cc 93
remedies available if someone defames someone, howe ver, truth1
is a defense. 2
So if a person says somebody has a record and, in3
fact, they do have a record, you’ll have a hard tim e getting a4
judgment in a libel or slander case. If someone sa id someone5
had a record for something that, in fact, they didn ’t do that6
was, in fact, false and it caused the individual ha rm, then7
they perhaps would have a cause of action.8
So the bottom line is this. The advice that was9
given to you or the suggestion that was made to you , if it 10
were -- it probably wasn’t advice -- that if you fe lt that11
these things which occurred to you was conduct by t he12
respondent from which you could be protected by a p eace order,13
you should go to court, that was proper. 14
There was nothing wrong with you filing a petition15
for a peace order. There was nothing wrong with yo u coming to16
court to tell a court what occurred and seek a reme dy. It was17
nothing with that. There was nothing wrong with yo ur18
attempting to link this conduct, which you believed would come19
under the statute, to your evidence why you should get a peace20
order. Nothing wrong with that at all. Nothing wr ong with it. 21
In fact, it would be foolish had you come to court and not22
attempted those things. The only problem with it i s it doesn’t23
come within the statute.24
Assume arguendo, for purposes of this ruling, that25
cc 94
everything you said is true. So. It doesn’t come within the1
statute. By the Court saying the peace order shoul d be denied,2
the Court is not finding in any way that the conduc t that you3
allege occurred did not occur. Don’t have to reach that. 4
Don’t have to go to the blogs, and to the Tweets, a nd to all of5
that. Don’t have to consider it at all because it’ s not6
prohibited by the statute. 7
It’s just not. If it were, maybe we wouldn’t even be8
here. If it were, maybe he would have consented to the9
issuance of a peace order. I don’t know.10
By the way, I didn’t ask you if your client consent ed11
because I think I knew the answer.12
So I’m taking this time, sir, to explain these thin gs13
to you to perhaps help you in any future decision t hat you make14
with respect to how you believe you’ve been aggriev ed. I don’t15
want you to leave court with the notion that the Co urt doesn’t16
find it credible or any of those things. It’s not that at all. 17
It’s just that what I just read to you is what I ha ve to find. 18
One of the factors that the Court could find existe d19
for you to get a peace order is the assault. The p roblem with20
that is there is not one scintilla of evidence that that will21
occur again. In fact, but for the fact that you ha d the22
camera, it’s not a camera but an iPad with a camera , but for23
the fact that you had that, the assault may not hav e happened24
at all. 25
cc 95
So unless there’s an attempt to take his picture,1
hypothetically, when he walks out of this courtroom , which I2
don’t think is going to occur -- well, he’s going t o walk out3
of the courtroom. I don’t mean that not occur, but I mean4
taking a picture. There’s no evidence that he’s go ing to do it5
again.6
I think this respondent, and I haven’t heard from7
him, but I think he, like you, probably would have rather been8
some place else today doing something else, and I’m sure he9
probably would have also. You’ve spent a day away from your10
office, away from doing what you were doing, for le gitimate11
reasons. This is the way we want people to settle disputes. 12
We want them to come into court. We want them to p resent their13
case, but that’s not all. We also want you to unde rstand the14
Court’s ruling, both of you, and to live by it.15
You came to court seeking relief because you believ ed16
the evidence was sufficient to grant it and now aft er a full17
blown hearing and explanation, perhaps ad nauseam, you should18
now understand why this case, these facts, do not e ntitle a19
person to the issuance of a peace order.20
It is in that category of situations that I often21
tell people, not just you and not just the responde nt in this22
case, is that the Court cannot grant a remedy to in dividuals23
who are subjected to every kind of annoying conduct there is24
that people could do. We just can’t. 25
cc 96
The law is attempting to do it. The peace order1
statute has only been around a short period of time .2
Legislature came up with this peace order and we ha ve a3
tremendous amount of litigation, tremendous amount, with these4
statutes because people read them the way you do, t hat if5
you’re annoyed and if a person does something that you believe6
is harassing, that you can get a peace order. You probably7
know now more about the peace order statute than yo u ever8
wanted to know about it or care about it, but going forward, I9
hope it places you in a better position. 10
I hope it places the respondent in a better positio n11
also, because he also now knows the kind of conduct , if you12
engage in it, could land you in court at a hearing like this.13
So I think I’ve taken the time to answer some of th e14
things I’ve said to you were because of things that you15
testified to which gave me a clue, more than a clue , of how you16
believe this statute works and I wanted you to go a way with the17
full understanding of how the statute works, and th at the Court18
is not sanctioning anything that happened here, but it just19
doesn’t come under the parameters that the legislat ure has set20
for issuance of a peace order, and for very good re asons.21
All right, gentlemen. Thank you very much. I’ll22
give both of you a copy of this. I said thank you both, but23
thank all three of you.24
Give them a copy.25
cc 97
MR. BOURS: Judge, I haven’t made up my mind if I’m1
going to, but I want to put the petitioner on notic e that we2
may ask that the record in this case be sealed, bec ause we are3
concerned that a purpose behind a lot of what Mr. K imberlin has4
done is to identify my client. If he’s going to do it by5
referring to court files, we may want this record s ealed. So6
I’m giving him notice now.7
And I will also say this, that if we file a request8
to seal, we have to send him a copy and I’ll send i t at the9
address he gave in his testimony. 10
THE COURT: That was why the questions about where he11
could be located?12
MR. BOURS: That’s right.13
MR. KIMBERLIN: That’s fine. I appreciate that. 14
I would note that Mr. Walker has filed a lawsuit15
against me that says exactly the same stuff. If he wants to16
dismiss that lawsuit, I will voluntarily agree to s eal this17
record right now.18
(The proceedings were concluded.)19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cc 98
/ Digitally signed by Michele R. Collyer
DIGITALLY SIGNED CERTIFICATE
DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. hereby certifies that the
foregoing pages represent an accurate transcript of the
duplicated electronic sound recording of the procee dings in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County in the matter o f:
Civil No. 8444D
BRETT KIMBERLIN
v.
AARON WALKER
By:
__________________Michele R. Collyer Transcriber