IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

BRETT KIMBERLIN,

Petitioner

v.

AARON WALKER,

Respondent

Case No. 8526D

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PARTIAL STAYOR MODIFICATION OF THE DISTRICT COURT

PEACE ORDER PENDING APPEAL

Respondent, Aaron J Walker, by REGINALD W. BOURS, III, PC, and pursuant

to Maryland Rule 7-112(c), respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue an

immediate order modifying or staying enforcement of a peace order issued by the District

Court of Maryland for Montgomery County [Vaughey, J .. ] on or about May 29, 2012,

pending a final hearing now scheduled in this court for July 5,2012, and in support of this

request, states as follows:

1. The subject peace order is attached as an exhibit to this motion, and on its

face prohibits "electronic contact" by Respondent with Petitioner.. However, in its oral ruling

issued May 29,2012, the District Court judge stated:

Respondent shall not contact the [petitioner] in person, by telephone, inwriting, or any other means And "any other means" is putting it on a blog, aTweet, a megaphone, a smoke signals-what else is out there-sonar,radar, laser. Nothing.

Transcript at 59.LAW OffiCES

i~,EGJNALD W BOURS, IlL P C

SUITE 1032. That, to place this in context, Petitioner claimed at the District Court hearing

401 ~AST JEfFERSON STREET

R.OCKVILLE }.lARYLA}/O 20850

(3011 340 7600

that Respondent had written about him on the internet in a blog known as "Allergic to Bull."

Petitioner further claimed that unfavorable comments about him in this blog had caused

-2-

other persons, not Respondent, and none of whom was identified, to "harass" or "threaten"

Petitioner at various times. Petitioner did not establish a direct causal connection between

the communications he did receive and this Respondent, and his entire presentation in

District Court was designed to prohibit the Respondent from exercising his rights of free

speech.

3. That, additionally, the Maryland Peace Order statutes do not allow for the

kind of overly broad order that was passed in this case by the District Court. Specifically,

the statute provides:

(2) If the judge issues an order under this section, the order shall containonly the relief that is minimally necessary to protect the petitioner.

Md. Code Ann., Cts & Jud Proc § 3-1505 (West) [Emphasis supplied]

4. Additionally, neither the Petitioner nor the District Court judge correctly

interpreted the portion of the statute permitting a peace order where it is established that

a Respondent has violated Crim. Law § 3-803. That statute provides:

Prohibited

(a) A person may not follow another in or about a public place or maliciously engagein a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys the other:(1) with the intent to harass, alarm, or annoy the other;(2) after receiving a reasonable warning or request to stop by or on behalf of theother; and(3) without a legal purpose.

Exception

(b) This section does not apply to a peaceable activity intended toexpress a political view or provide information to others"

Md. Code Ann, Crim. Law § 3-803 (West) [Emphasis supplied]

Further, in Galloway v State, the Court of Appeals specifically stated that

Maryland's harassment statute" expressly eliminates constitutionally protected speech

-3-

from its ambit." 781 A 2d 851,878 (Md. 2001). In other words, constitutionally protected

expression cannot be considered harassment.

5. That, for the foregoing reasons, the District Court peace order should be

modified or stayed for direct violations of the Maryland peace order statutes ..

6. To further assist the court in reviewing the matter, this is the second peace

order filed against the Respondent by the Petitioner. On January 9,2012, the Petitioner

appeared before the District Court and a District Court Commissioner following a court

appearance in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. He successfully obtained a

temporary peace order based on allegations of assault and harassment from the District

Court in case number 0601 SP005392012, and a Commissioner issued a criminal

summons for assault in case number 0000276493.

7. The Montgomery County State's Attorney Office declined to prosecute the

criminal charge after video evidence from a Circuit Court security camera failed to support,

and largely contradicted the Petitioner's claims .. When the Respondent was notified of this

decision, he filed a written opposition to the State's absolute right to enter a nolle prosequi

See attached exhibit.

8 A District Court judge granted a final peace order to the Petitioner solely on

the basis of harassment, but declined to find there was clear and convincing evidence of

an assault. Respondent appealed that decision to Circuit Court, and the Honorable Eric

M. Johnson found that there was no evidence of harassment within the meaning of the

peace order statute and relevant criminal harassment statute, and declined to find a basis

to order an ongoing peace order based on the allegation of assault. Judge Johnson found

in favor of the Respondent based on the Petitioner's presentation only.

II

-4-

9. In the current proceeding, the Petitioner went to a District Court

Commissioner at midnight on Saturday, May 19, 2012 and presented ex parte claims that,

in part, rehash "factual" allegations from his first peace order case and somehow obtained

an interim order on the basis that putting information on the internet about the Petitioner

was somehow a threat to the Petitioner and therefore constituted harassment.

10. Following issuance of the interim order Petitioner appeared again in an ex

parte proceeding before a District Court judge on May 22, 2012 That judge issued a

temporary order that was never served on the Respondent Before a final hearing was

even held, and again on a weekend night, the Petitioner went to a commissioner and

obtained criminal charges [See attached] alleging violations of the unserved temporary

peace order based on the Petitioner's claimed receipt of threats following blogs and tweets

on the internet Blogs and tweets do not involve direct contact by the author with this

Respondent, but were communications about the Petitioner directed toward a general

audience. In short, the effect of the District Court peace order" .. is not attempting to stop

the flow of information into [the Respondent's] own household, but to the public."

Organization fora BetterAustin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419-420 (1971), an act considered

inherently questionable by the Keefe court .. See also United States v. Cassidy, 814 F.

Supp. 2d 574 (D Md .. 2011) (dismissing a prosecution for "stalking" by twitter and blogs

because they are released to the general public and only seen by the "victim" voluntarily).

11 . The record of the District Court peace order hearing demonstrates that there

was absolutely no evidence that the Respondent had personally threatened the Petitioner

II

-5-

or that anyone did so at the Respondent's direction. Tr.. at 17-18.. Rather, the court found

that the Respondent had incited threats against the Petitioner merely by asserting that the

Petitioner had engaged in reprehensible conduct Tr at 55.

12. The District Court imposed a broad-based prior restraint upon the

Respondent's speech to a general audience As the Supreme Court said in Keefe, supra,

" ... [a]ny prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a heavy presumption against

its constitutional validity." 402 US at 419 (internal quotations omitted) Rather than

overcome that burden, the District Court disregarded by name controlling Supreme Court

precedent on what constitutes incitement:

A [Walker] But, your honor, I did not incite him within the Brandenburgstandard ..

Q [the court] Forget Brandenburg. Let's go by Vaughey right now, andcommon sense out in the world

The "Brandenburg" that Judge Vaughey chose to ignore was Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US

444 (1969). where the Supreme Court stated that:

The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit aState to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violationexcept where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminentlawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action

395 US, at 447 [Emphasis supplied]

There was no evidence in the District Court hearing that the Respondent advocated

the use of force or "law violation" as required by the Brandenburg standard. Indeed, the

uncontradicted testimony of the Respondent indicates that he actively took steps when

writing about the Petitioner to prevent vigilantism:

II

-6-

[Walker] I have told the world about what this man did to me, but it's all I'vedone. Now I know, Your Honor.. that when you. say to the world,"Someone has done something evil," that you do obviously have a risk ofthings like violence and things like that It's inescapable. But I have neverincited violence.. I have always told people every time they have saidanything violent in my presence, I said, "I don't endorse violence even as ajoke." .

On top of that, I put numerous, numerous, numerous primary documents onmy website. Many of those documents originally had [Kimberlin's] homeaddress, had his phone number, had his email address, etcetera, etceteraI carefully redacted every single instance of that. I didn't put any currentphotos of Mr.. Kimberlin on the website[ .. ]

Tr.. at 43-44, copies attached. In Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court specifically held

that merely stating that a person has engaged in "reprehensible conduct" and that law

enforcement had failed to address that conduct is not sufficient to constitute incitement

justifying a prior restraint of freedom of expression, even when there is fear that such

expression might "disturb the public peace and ... provoke assaults and the commission of

crime." 283 US 697,721-22 (1931)

13. Further, as noted above, the court cannot find that harassment has occurred

if the conduct is done for a "legal purpose." MD. CRIMINAL LAw CODE §3-803(a)(3). And the

Respondent's purpose is not only legal, but specifically enumerated in the First

Amendment: he was petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Respondent

believes that the Petitioner (who has a long and deplorable criminal record) has actually

attempted to frame the Respondent for a crime and has asked the State's Attorney to file

charges relating to perjury and other false statements the Petitioner has made while

attempting to cause the Petitioner to be incarcerated. Despite having video evidence

proving that the Petitioner lied in his first criminal complaint, lied in his first petition for

II

-7-

peace order and perjured himself in every proceeding related to that first peace order, the

State's Attorney has rebuffed Respondent's request for the Petitioner to be charged with

a crime. Therefore having exhausted official channels, the Respondent has gone public

with his story, asking for the public to urge the State's Attorney to prosecute Petitioner:

[Walker] Look at, for example, what happened with the Trayvon Martinincident, okay? A man named George Zimmerman shot this young mannamed Trayvon Martin His parents felt that [Zimmerman] deserved to becharged with a crime The police did not charge him. So they raised anational uproar. And what happened? They've now charged him.

Now, I disagree with the decision to charge Mr Zimmerman, but that is themodel of what I am trying to do. I'm trying to create enough of a nationaluproar to create pressure on [Montgomery County State's Attorney] JohnMcCarthy to finally charge [Kimberlin] with the crimes related to him trying toframe me for a crime I'm trying to get justice .. And he wants to shut me up.

Tr. at 50-51 This is undeniably a legal purpose and therefore rebuts any claim that

Respondent is "harassing" Petitioner Thus for this reason as well, the District Court failed

to overcome the "heavy presumption" against the constitutional validity of this prior

restraint Keefe, 402 US at 419

14. Emergency relief and indeed ex parte relief is appropriate in th is case First,

this is a continuing and intolerable violation of Respondent's First Amendment rights that

if left unaddressed will ironically go through Independence Day. "Where .. a direct prior

restraint is imposed ... , each passing day may constitute a separate and cognizable

infringement of the First Amendment" Nebraska Press Assn v Stuart, 423 U. S. 1319,

1329 (1975) (BLACKMUN, J, in chambers). And indeed expedited process has frequently

been used to prevent irreparable harm to First Amendment rights. In Patuxent Publishing

Corp v. State, 429 A2d 554 (Md Ct Spec. App 1981), the Court of Special Appeals

II

-8-

provided next day review of a Howard County Circuit Court order that implicated the First

Amendment and in CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315 (1994) (Blackmun, J, in chambers)

another prior restraint on the press went from the initial temporary restraining order in

South Dakota Circuit Court to a stay issued by a US. Supreme Court justice in fifteen

days. And while all of those cases involved the institutional press, the Supreme Court has

"consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional

privilege beyond that of other speakers." Citizens United v FEC, 130 SCt 876, 905

(2010)

15 Further, under Carroll, it is clear that the default position is that the

Respondent should be free to express himself without prior restraints until and unless the

Petitioner can overcome the presumption against such restraints at a fulsome hearing.

"[E]ven where this presumption [against prior restraints] might otherwise be overcome, the

Court has insisted upon careful procedural provisions, designed to assure the fullest

presentation and consideration of the matlerwhich the circumstances permit" Carroll, 393

U. S at 181. The District Court hearing, where the judge refused to review the allegedly

harassing writings (Tr.. at 48), and disregarded controlling Supreme Court precedent by

name, does not meet this standard.

16. Accordingly, this court should find immediately and on an ex parte basis that

the Petitioner did not meet his burden under Carroll to justify this prior restraint on the

Respondent's speech and stay the enforcement of the prohibition against discussing the

Petitioner to a general audience until such time as this burden is met This should be done

immediately and ex parte because it is already clear based on the record below that an

11

-9-

insufficient factual basis exists to support this prior restraint If Petitioner, at some later

date, comes to this court with sufficient evidence to justify the prior restraint on the

Respondent's freedom of expression-either in a responsive pleading or at the July 5,

2012 hearing-at that time this court can re-impose this prior restraint

17 This emergency motion does not address the prohibitions in the peace order

that prevent the Respondent from entering the Petitioner's residence, harming the

Petitioner or threatening to do so, or indeed by contacting him with directed

communications, such as phone calls, e-mails, letters, text messages, or any other

messaging service whereby a person directs communications to specific person or

persons.. A proposed order for limited ex parte relief is attached.

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sign an

appropriate ex parte order modifying or staying the provisions of the District Court peace

order that purports to limit is right of free speech>

REGINALD W. SOURS, IIIAttorney for Respondent401 East Jefferson StreetSuite 103Rockville, Maryland 20850(301) 340-7600

------- -

..

1//11111/11/111/111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIJ/ilWif-.

DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY191 EAST JEFFERSON ST, ROCKVILLE, MD 20850 Case No. 0601SP019792012

Date: OS/29/2012 10:52 am.

BRETT KIMBERLIN vs AARON JUSTIN WALKER

FINAL PEACE ORDER

After the appearance of the PETITIONER, and RESPONDENT, and in consideration of the Petition andevidence,the Court makes the following findings:

A 1 That there is clear and convincing evidence that within 30 days before the filing of the Petition, theRespondent committed the following act(s):Placed Person Eligible for relief in fear of imminent serious bodily harm: COUNTLESS NUMBER OFBLOGS EITHER THREATENING DEATH

2 That there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is likely to commit a prohibited act in the futureagainst the Petitioner

Based on the for·egoing, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1 Unless stated otherwise below, this Order is effective until 11/15/2012.

2 That the Respondent SHALL NOT commit or threaten to commit any of the following acts against Petitioner:an act which causes serious bodily harm; an act that places the Petitioner in fear of imminent serious bodilyharm; assault; rape, attempted rape, sexual offense, or attempted sexual offense; false imprisonment;harassment; stalking; trespass; or malicious destruction of property.

3. That the Respondent SHALL NOT contact (in person, by telephone, in writing, or by any other means),attempt to contact, or harass the Petitioner

4. That the Respondent SHALL NOT enter the residence of PETITIONER at ANYWHERE(Residence includes yard, grounds, outbuildings, and common areas surrounding the dwelling)

5. That the Respondent SHALL STAY AWAY from:

The Petitioner's place(s) of employment at:ANYWHERE

Comments:THREATSCOND#1- NO ELECTRONIC CONTACT

Date: OS/29/2012J

NOTICE TO RESPONDENTVioiation of this Peace Order may be a crime or contempt of court or both, and couid result in imprisonment or fine or both

PC/PO 3 (Rev 12/2004) Page 1

Aaron

Rectangle

IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------x

BRETT KIMBERLIN,

Plaintiff,

v,

AARON JUSTIN WALKER,

Defendant ..

------------------------------x

Case No, 0601SP019792012

.~

HEARING

Rockville, Maryland

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC,12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210

Germantown, Maryland 20874(301) 881-3344

May 29, 2012

,

i I

.Y ,'.l I,TYr·. ,- ~-H.t!;I

,II,

..... _ ......1 -. __ ~ - __ • _~ ...

B' =-·'I'T KI .' -RL,. I..!!I

..

'. t 1_ -_ ,{ •II

..

.. C:" ..',_- _ J

·0····' JU.. '."1'1 1.lIr-:LlEc:oo. ....l· . I .", " "R,

..'

_ I __ ~"" __ oiiiIiiii- _,IiiiiiIIiio ........P-.111111111 oIiiiiiiIio~,_.iIiiiiiiii.

,okv' le,ary anI

I

a 2'.9, 20 2

-'oc· 'd, ~ "g''- ,- . I' 1 e' t,itlr'-d

rna _·tar co' mence,·~

CO, ,.,L J "DGH'E'

II "s .,

'. ax:'

'E . I '.. ~l:.'o Sa

I08_

O· JU'T ',.''. '.. 1'1 . I '. I S" I --0 Se

'0 a,· ess p' 'Iov i . e·

WITNESSES

For the Petitioner:

Brett Kimberlin

DIRECT

5

.1 N D E X

CROSS

21

REDIRECT RECROSS

For the Respondent:

Aaron Justin walker 40

kc

1

2

3

THE COURT: No, you can't right now,

MR" WALKER: All right,

THE COURT: That's what you got to, as when I was

59

4 over in Munich in the appeals courts over there --

MR, WALKER: Okay, Your Honor,5

6 THE COURT: - - appeal" All right, sir" This order

7 shall remain in effect until November the 15th, 2012" During

8 that period of time, you not shall commit any act that causes

9 him, puts him in fear and apprehension of bodily harm, any act

10 that places the gentleman in fear and apprehension of grave

11 bodily harm, any assault, rape, attempt to rape, sexual

12 offense, false imprisonment, harassment, stalking, trespass, or

13 malicious destruction of property"

14 Respondent shall not contact the person in person, by

15 telephone, in writing, or any other means, And "any other

16 means" is putting it on a blog, a Tweet, a megaphone, a smoke

17 signals - - what else is out there - - sonar, radar, laser

18 Nothing"

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 me?

MR" WALKER: So, I'm not allowed to --

THE COURT: You

MR, WALKER: speak about him for six months?

THE COURT: How many times are you going to - -

MR WALKER: What happened to the First Amendment?

THE COURT: How many times are you going to interTupt

Aaron

Rectangle

kc 43

1 Q -- can't even get to the point I just asked a

2 simple question, Were you convicted?

What?

No, I was not,

I apologize, Your Honor,

That's quite all right, Were you convicted?

Okay" Then what happened to the case?

It was nolle prossed after he filed --

Okay" Nolle prossed, that's an action of the State,

I apologize, Your Honor,No"

Q

Q

A

Q

A

Q

A

A3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 not by you and not by him, that's a State action, Okay"

12 That's all I want to know" Nolle prossed.,

13

14

A

Q

Right"

That can be brought back in the statute of

15 limitations or whatever

it's something different"

I reported on my, I have told the world about

That's true, Your Honor,

I don't want, keep going"

SoSo that's, okay,-- the time it becomes --, okay

Okay,

Q

A

A

16

17

18

19

20 what this man did to me, but it's all I've done Now, I know

21 Your Honor, I know Your Honor, that when you tell, say to the

22 world, n Someone has done something evil, n that you do obviously

But I have never incited violence, I have always

23

24

have a risk of things like violence and things like that,

inescapable,

It's

25 told people every time that they have said anything violent in

kc 44

1 my presence, I said, "I do not endorse violence even as a

2 joke .. " And even if they joke about it, "Oh, wouldn't it be

3 funny if he went to prison and got raped," I would say, "That

4 is not cool, I'm not cool with that" I was always clear with

5 that ..

6 On top of that, I put numerous, numerous, numerous

7 primary documents on my website.. Many of those documents

8 originally had his home address, had his phone number, had his

e-mail address, etcetera, etcetera.9

10 single instance of that.

I carefully redacted every

I didn't put any current photos of

11 Mr.. Kimberlin on the website. I

Did you send all those e-mails that he had there?12

13

Q

A I did not send any nasty e-mail to him .. I've never·

14 sent him an e-mail, period ..

So those 54 pages, 540 e-mails, never came from you?

Well, the 54 pages he's talking about is Twitter, and

That was not the question.. You've changed it again ..

Well, I apologize.

Did you send those e-mails?

15

16

17

18

19

20

Q

A

Q

A

Q

A

No, I didn't.. I've never e-mailed him, period.

21 Twitter is something where you talk to the world, not to Brett

22 Kimberlin.. Brett Kimber·lin believes that if you speak anywhere

23 on the Internet, it is equivalent to putting a letter in his

24 mailbox .. And he is trying to use, he's trying to equate it to

25 Galloway, in Galloway v. State, saying Your Honor, that, or in

Aaron

Rectangle

ff:r ...1ey<-If{

,.9

C)o~;\ ::::

C-'(';;_...\

;~:c' ,_.{

DISTRICT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND

STATE OF MARYLAND,Plaintiff,

v No.OD00276493 en,\.

o

AARON JUSTIN WALKER,Defendant.

VICTIM/COMPLAINANT BRETT KIMBERLlN'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TOSTATE'S MOTION TO NOLLE PROS THIS CASE

Now comes Victim/Complainant Brett Kimberlin ("Victim") and hereby opposes

the State's Motion to Nolle Pros this case In SUppOlt of this motion, Victim states

that this is not simply a rull of themiJI assault case but rather one that has both._,.__._,,-,-~ --'-' ",..".'--' -

'llatlt5l1ii]'alfd1fiternationalramlfiCatlonsan:a Ei beIngwatched byfederal law

enforcement authorities, Stilte Department contractors, organizationsthat monitor

hate groups, foreign countries with large Muslim populations, and national Ml1slim

and civil rights organizations. There are many aggravating factors piesent in this

case that warrant full prosecution and even consideration of additional charges

against Mr Walker.

Factual Statement

1. Defend\lnt Aaron Walker is a Virginia attomey who assaulted Victim on

January 9, 2012 after a civil court hearing in Montgomery County Circuit

Court

2 Prior to the hearing, Mr Walker had been stalking and harassing Victim on his

personal blog with defamatory, aggressive, and derogatory posts He asked

-- ._---,-~--,------- "."'--'-"'-'--"'-------"'---' ------_._._ .._,--_._,-,..,_._-_._-_.,~--. __.__...._.~._._~,-_. __.__.

his readers to "get out the popqorn" to watch how he would destroy Victim

He did all this using a pseudonym, "Aaron Worthing Esq."

3 Victim could not locate any listing for an attorney named Aaron Worthing so

he sought assistance from the Montgomery County Circuit Court to ascertain

the real identity of Mr Worthing prior to a court hearing set for january 9,

2012. However, several days prior to the hearing, Victim learned that Aaron

Worthing was actually Aaron Walker

4 Victim then filed a motion in the court dismissing as moot his motion to

compel the identity of Mr Worthing/Walker.

5 On january 9, 2012, Ml. Walker showed up at the hearing and made an- - "_.. _,-,.-.' ,,-

-emergency-oralmotioi1fiiseaiVlctlm'S motion i;rentiiYing him a~Aaron

Walker. He argued that since he (as AalOn Worthing) was the publisher of a

Muslim hate blog called Everyone Draw Mohammed, he would be killed by

Muslims if theyknew he was really Aaron Walker Judge Rupp was taken

aback by Mr, Walker's appearance in the case but did grant Mr Walker's

motion to seal the motion However, even after the judge told Mr Walker to

sit in the spectatOl section, Mr Walker continued to interject until Judge Rupp

warned him that sheriff deputies would escort him from the courtroom ifhe

continued

6 As Victim was exiting the courtroom, Mr. Walker began berating Victim for

identifying him and said that he would continue to harass Victim As Victim

exited the courtroom doors, Mr Walker became more irate and began making

threateningmoves toward Victim including coming toward Victim. Therefore,

Victim, using his iPad, snapped a photo of Mr Walker with his hand coming

toward Victim Exhibit A

7 Mr Walker struck Victim with his hand, and Mr Walker began wrestling with

Victim for possession of the iPad A person who followed Victim £r'om the

courtroom repeatedly called back into the court, "He (Mr Walker) attacked

him" Two courtroom staff came running from the court and separated Mr

Walker from Victim Mr Walker retained possession of the iPad The staff also

called for assistance of courtroom deputies who arrived shortly thereafter

8 Approximately nine deputies arrived and Victim immediately told them that

Mr Walker had attacked him and still had his iPad One deputy retrieved the

iPad fl'om Mr Walker and several deputies advised Victim to go to the

Commissioner's office to press criminal charges against Mr, Walker for

assault

9 The deputies safely escorted Victim down the elevator, and Victim went

straight to the Commissioner's office and filed both second··degree assault

charges and for a Peace Order, which was granted

10 Victim then immediately went to a nearby medical clinic to be treated for his

injur ies during the assault When the doctor at the clinic evaluated Victim, he

said that Victim had to immediately go to the Emergency Ward at Suburban

Hospital because of a contusion to the eye, blurry vision, twitching and a

severe headache The Doctor was concerned that Victim suffered a

concussion and even said that Victim should take an ambulance rather than

drive.

11 When Victim arrived a Suburban Hospital, he was immediately admitted to

the Emergency Ward and quickly evaluated and taken for a CT scan, given eye

exams, given medication for both pain and for contusion to the eye Victim

was kept under observation for several hauls and then released with orders

to rest for several days and to take steroids eye drops for one week He was

also ordered to get a follow-up evaluation from his primary care physician

12 Victim suffere!i a black eye from second-!iegree assault It lasted throughout

the week Exhibit B

13_ Victim did seek follow up care, and was given an EKG and more X-'!ays due to

pain in the chest area

-14 Victfmwasl.uiiiblefo work auring the ;';e~kofJanuary 9th due to his injuries

and his medical care

15. Mr Walker responded to Victim's legal filings in the following retaliatory

ways: (1) he filed a malicious criminal charge against Victim for perjuIY, (2)

he filed a false and malicious Peace Or der application "gainst a third party

named Neal Rauhauser, and falsely told the sheriff that he lived at Victim's

address (when he had never even visited Victim's home) which caused three

sheriffs to come to Victim's home to ser ve Mr Rauhauser, (3J he filed a

frivolous and malicious $66,000,000 lawsuit against Victim and two others,

which has sInce been served on Victim, (4) he used Twitter to attackVictim in

dozens of tweets, and (5) he blogged that Victim is "human filth" and told

people, as an attorney, that if they donate to Victim's non profits, they would

------ ----- -- - - .- -~--_._---_._---_.~--~~-----._-~__.-~----

be liable for criminal and civil consequences because Victim exposed his real

name.

16 When Mr Walker appeared on February 8,2012 for Victim's Peace Order

hearing for his assault, he told the judge that he did not assault Victim but

rather took the iPad without incident because he thought it might be a

"bomb" He said that Victim must have ended up in Suburban Hospital

Emergency Room with injuries by having someone else beatVictim up so

Victim could file false assault charges against him. Asheriff deputy testified

at the hearing that Victim stated that Mr Walker had assaulted Victim

immediately after the attack and that he had to take myiPad away from Mr,

. "Walker, ana 'anoHier aeput¥showed the judge the 'in~id~~t report from that

assault which said the same Victim presented the judge with evidence of Mr

Walker's harassment of Victim as noted in paragraph 15 above After hearing

all the evidence, the Judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr

Walker had assaulted and harassed Victim, and the judge issued a final Peace

Order prohibiting Mr Walker from further haraSsing Victim Exhibit C

17 When Mr Walker appeared on Febr uary 16, 2012 for his Peace Order hearing

against Mr Rauhauser, at which Mr Rauhauser did not even appear, Mr

Walker engaged in a most bizarre statement of events telling the judge that he

needed a Peace Order because, according to him, Mr Rauhauser posted

something called "Kookpopohs" on the Internet which contained three items, .

, a map of Manassas, Vir ginia, a map of Boston, Massachusetts, and a

beheading video in a foreign language He begged the judge to see these as a

threat to Mr, Walker since he lived in Manassas, a client lived in

Massachusetts, and Muslims behead people The judge was incredulous, even

at one point asking Mr Walker if he was really an attor ney Finally, the judge

said that even without Mr Rauhauser present to defend himself, she was

going to find that Mr Walker failed to meet the statutory burden neceSsaryfor

issuance of a Peace Order, Exhibit D

18 The criminal charge that Mr. Walker filed against Victim did not even result in

summons or make it past the screeners at the District AttOrney's office

ExhibitE

Ef, 1<11'; Walker has stalkeci, assaulted and harassed Victim because of Victim's

worKas DirectoroJ'aMaryIaniCbasednatlonalnon.proflttn.at, inter alia,

supports Muslim activists, musicians and artists opposed to violence and

oppression, Mr, Walker runs a Muslim hate blog, which has over 800 vile

depictions of the Prophet Mohammed on itto insult Muslims, He useS that

blogto taunt Muslims by calling them "bitches" and teUingthem to come to

Manassas, Virginia so he can engage in a gun battle with them (of course he

used his false name for such taunts) MI. Walker's criterion for posting a

depiction of Pr ophet Mohammed is whether it is "fatwah-worthy," meaning

whether a Muslim cleric would issue a fatwah (edict) condemning to death the

person(s) who create and published the depiction

20, Facebook has banned Mr Walker and his hate blogfrom Facebook because

they promote hate against a religion, The Pakistan government has banned

the blog because it blasphemes the Prophet Mohammed The State

Department has condemned the blog because it creates anti-American

sentiment Osama Bin Laden has used to the blog to recruit suicide bombers

to kIll Americans in Afghanistan

21 Victim has talked to the Souther n Law Poverty Center ("SLPC'j about Mr

Walker's hate blog and his team of Muslim haters SLPC is in the process of

naming them as a hate organization that uses bullying, intimidation, threats

and violence to secure their goals

22. Victim has talked and met with numerous civil rights and national Muslim

organizations about Mr Walker's conduct, his hate blog, his malicious and

criminal conduct, and his attempt to gag Victim. They view Mr. Walker's

conduct,hate15lbgam:1 aSSOCiates as simiiai to tnatOf tIleK1YKhixKlanaiid are""

considering a broad set oflegal actions, both criminal and civil, to dismantle

the operation.

23 L!Victim were a member of the Muslim raith, this case would be considered a

hate crime under both state and federal law

Aggravating Factors

There are numerous aggravating factors in this case that warrant robust

prosecution on Mr Walker.

24 Mr. Walker is an attorney Attorneys are bound by the Rules of Professional

Conduct to act in a professional and ethical manner. Yet he came ft om

Virginia to Maryland and assaulted Victim after stalkIng, harassing,

threatening, insulting, defaming, and dispar aging Victim for months

Brett Kimbe

25. Mr. Walker assaulted Victim in a courthouse·-a place where Victim went to

seek redreSs of grievances and where he had a rightto be secure and safe

26. Mr. Walker made no amends following the assault, no apology and showed no

contrition Instead, he le··victimized Victim by filing (1) a false criminal

char ge against Victim, (2) a false Peace Ordel against N.eal Rauhauser in order

to have the Sherif! corne to Victim's home to startle and harass Victim, .and (3)

a malicious $66,000,000 suit against Victim

27. Following the assaUlt, Mr. Walker doubled down on the harassment by

making dozens of disparaging tweets about Victim, by urging other bloggers

to attack Victim, by blogglng that Victim is "human filth," and by threatening

28. Mr Walker has repeatedly lied to every court about his conduct by attempting

to blame Victim He said thatVictim made the whole thing up He said tpat he

thought the iPad was a bomb He said that Victim musthave had someone

beat him up so he could go to the hospital He said that he never touched

Victim He falsely accused Victim of crimes He falsely accused Neal

Rauhauser of crimes in Order to harass Victim

Conclusion

For all the above reasons, Victim moves this Court to deny the State's nolle pros

motion and to order a trial in this case

Respectfully submitted,~)

/'. .. <;7/'/

.._--"~----- ~-"-,"-_.__._---"_._-------- - - --- - - - --

-- -

..

------1I

:~ . DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR MONTGOME~~~~!~!!Wmllllill~I~I~ml~".:Jl

191 EAST JEFFERSON ST, ROCKVILLE, MD 20850 Case No, 0801SP005392012Date: 0210812012 10:46 a m

BRETT K1MBERL.lNE vs AARON WALKER

FINAL PEACE ORDER

After the apPearanoe of the PETfnONER, and RESPONDENT, and in consideration of the Pamion andevidence,the Court makes the following findings:

A 1 That there is clear and convinoing eVidenoe that within 30 days before the filing of the Pelition, theRespondent committed the following aot(s):Hamssment

2 1hat there is clear and oonvinolng evldenoe that Respondent is IIkeiy to commit a prohibited aot in thEj futureagalnst the Petitioner

Based on lhe foregoing, the Court hereby OI'lOERS:

Unless stated otherwise below, this Order is effec\ive until 08108/2012

2 That the Respc:mdent SHALL NOT commit or lhreaten to commit any of the following acts against Petitioner:an act whiQh o8Usesseilous bo(fily harm; an act that places the Petitioner in fear of Imminent seiious bodilyharm: essaull; rape,atlemp\edrap,e, sexual offene\', or attempted seXual offense; false impriSonment;harassment; stalking; lrespass;or malicious dlOlslruCtion ofproperty

3 That the RespondlOlnt SHA~l NOT contact (in person, by telephone, in writing, or by any other means),attempt to contact, or harass the Petitioner

4 rhalthe Respondent SHALL Nor enler lhlOlresldence of 6REIT KIM6E;RlINE at WMEREVER l.OCATED(Residenceiholudes yard, grounds, oulbulldlngs, and common areas surrounding Ihe dwelling)

5 That thl; Respondent SHALL SlAY AWAY from:

rhe Petitioner's place{s) of employment at:WHEREVER l.OCATE;D

Date: 02/0812012

NonCE TO RE.SPONDENTViolation of this Peaoe Order may be a crime or contempt of oourt or both, and could result In imprisonment or fine or both

PCIPO 3 (Rev 12/2004)

--~----~------ -

Page 1

---- - -- - ---~-- -------------

------_._--~.~..,._--,--------_.__ •....~..----

DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR Montgomery CountyLocated at 191 East Jefferson St, Rockville, Maryland 20850 Case No. SD00279004

111111I~1I11~11~")~II~ll.ll~

Eyes: BRNHair: BRNPhone(W):

Wt240

CC#: SID:LID: DL#:Race: 2 Sex:M. fU:6'OBDOB:••• Phone(H):

WALKER, AARON

MANASSAS, VA 20109

VS.STATE OF MARYLAND

COMPLAINANT:KIMBERLIN, BRErT

BETHESDA, MD 20817

STATEMENT OF CHARGESUPON THE FACTS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICAnON OF KIMBERLIN, BRETT IT IS FORMALLY CHARGEDTHAT WALKER, AARON at the dates, times and locations specified below:

NUM CHG/CII STATUTE PENALTY DESCRIPTION OF THE CHARGE

001 20105 CJ 3-1508 90 D &lOI $1,00000 PEACE ORDER: FAll.. TO COMPLYOn or About 05122/2012 - 05f27f2012

"1111""'11I.1BETHESDAMONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND...did failw comply with an Onlcr dated 05-22-12, issued under-the AnnotatedCode ofMaIyland, Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, Sec 3-1504 thatordered the respondent to refmin from committing or threatening to commit anyofthe acts specified in Section 3-1503 of said Courts & 1udicial ProceedingsArticle against BREIT KIMBERlIN AND contacting. attempting to contact,harassing BREIT KIMBERlINAgainst the Peace, Government. and Dignity of the State.

Date: OS/27/2012 Time: 10:18 PM

Tracking No" 121001348322

Judicial Officer: __-==-_-==-- 6610

:QISTRIcTcq~,'~.

ATEDCASES:o bQ1 51"0 tCf792.ol"l.'f<;'&:.b;Bv{,t. \1 Lt..b.(~(;~

." ".·.r~·~~ ~r ~J:~\: ~~~

---- -- ----~

".TdeJliD~;: r.t •

:. ':~! ~~': ~!

" :.. , ......

Applican?s Signature ....

O;I.ha~'3dvise9applicantQf~~4ing.right.Q APl>~t~lin~:slJ.lddiJ;J.g.~ '. '. ,';1" .:';~. ;G:';1.) '-"fo. LV" .

o I declined to issue a charging document because·oflackofprobSble cause""r; :i<, H'!J.;~' ; ~,. ,r;d:i1 '.;;J:r J.'i.':;it'i:idrl, ,01

.:.~.:)j.

',-"

l' -. J.I. ~'.

'.',n":!,~<'~" \ ",',r' ,"'!.'J l"'!--r~-

.~oller ·w.,

. .tIL'" : ;1 ,H wp-d";.'1':" ~ 'Hi;F~fl' .0" .:-:~~)~~;"

De/eR 1 (Rev.. 1212006) PriDt Date (3/2010)

_~.. _ _ • r _ ----..~ _~__ "'-::- ~:~~

:.--~ ---- ---'-'- .~~~'.:~=~

)"Hl:';' .. ;: Jf. no~'i:< ~ " t :J Win·Hf'U!lf'h..... " ... '

I: '~. : ,.'

~ , ,t I.!:-\ (""" :, ,.' ~...- ~ 1"..... ~ •.

~

DIS;pnCT COURT OF~YLAND~,~"ii~/j~.~,!~::"~..~~:;Z"."., ..._.~,~,~"~,,!,7,,,I.oeA.TED AT (COURT ADDRESS)

IDEFENDANT~SNAME(lAST'FIRST MI} I, l1\Jci \ t-r ~', AQ J "J VI. ,

APPLICATION FOR STATEMENT OF CHARGES (CONTINUED) Page~,of~

",,,,r!1,Y,,, ",,,.~~~:;,,,,\,I~:~,::?.,::, "",L.J,9.,.s""""",.. ",,±,,~,8 ,S""±"f",.~,,,,,,.,,,,:?,~,,,,,,,,,,,,I,,,~,,,~,,,±,,!,:;.,::,,,, ""9."~,},~,~~,i" ... ",,,,,_.~,,~.,,,,,,

_::~~::.,3:~t':=':2:~~~~_:':~~~~~:3:~~:i~~~~~~~::;~::::~~~:~:::\:'i : f ~ " )". ' {'

_._-::~~~:.~~::;::~~~L=;I:-;:~.::~=:~:_;~~t~I~:~;.::~~~:_~e""",,,,,,9,,,~;,,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,.S,,,,~,,5S,,,,::::;,,,,,,\,,,'±,,:.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,""""".""".",,,,,,,,,,""""""" ,,'" """"''''''""""""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,''''''''''''''''''''''''',,,,,,,"""'''''''' ,,,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, """,,,".',.. ""... """..."",,,,,,,,,.,,,,"",,,,,,"''''''''''''',,,,.,,,,,,,,..,,,,, ••. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

,,', I'1v, We l L~1,.. l.\-~ ( "~L-t q 0-( I l.- Q'-'.~ ! k lJ ! (.Q f- k\r.&'Q i- t:. 1"..,.,',"-' ,.."... " "'. """. ,,,,,,,..""".,.,. '" ,,, .. " '.' "."" "".,, ""."..". ' "'" ,,,,,,, '" "~;,··~"·"·····"·r":"-·,,,,,, .. ·t··"'···"'····j .._ ""''''''''''.' "".._.._- _"" " "

"."" ... " . ". k::::'1.£... "." ,~'.~.Y. ~".~::t (7"'" ... LU,f.:t:J.~ ..". "..d!i:.s.t·~"" ..r"..R.~::\.s:£.," """. ""'j-....~?..S.i."",.."~"~.:_"""~,::L~,,.,,,,.,,""'" ...

"",.. ,,, ..,,,S;j.. s:.,~?,,,,,,:,,,,, ,:J:.S,,,\,J~:,~,,,~~,,,,,,,,,.,::±,2. .. ,..""""",t"""~~,8""'''''''''''''''f-)"Q,J,~,,,!..":k ..""".,}.,.."s.,~S£, .."." .., ",.."lc.i,2..:± ,,..: :±;..,9"" 5"..h.9. ,I..A./

... " ..,.. ",~S.""~:i., .. ". ,.,."".h~~i····" ..·' ...L·'··'··,···~·,,·?,,~;~· .. :!· ,., ....."....".. ,~,.~.: ...... ".,."'.:r,,:......,..,.... ;." ..~.~:: ...s ..(...i..'" ...i- ...t:;":,:...C'f,,;f7..1}' ·;trr~ ..· .r,·;~,s.. ,~,.i Y..,,~,.!:,'i.~2·.' ,'"' ~ i.J 4 ~ ~ W~" ~~~......... ,.,." ,~., .." _.,~S§. .., "'~ .. ,.. ".. ~. '!..,.~: .,.~,., ..,.,.s, ,.. "',,., .., S'.~~~,.~c ,.",.",,,,,:::t,,.., 'i£,,,,,, .""., 1J.' ••~I..S,. ,f :.., ".,~ : ~, _ ,,:~:, ..::~..s ..r.s.' ",.."..i ~.,..S: " ""..,,,.

.. ,", ..,'''''',:~''''~~J",S •."I, "{"""""",,,,,,,, .. ,,,,.. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.. ,,,,,,,,,",,,,,,,,,,,'"'"''''''', .."..''''''' ",.. ,,, ,,, ",,,, .. ,,,,,,,,,,,,.. ,,,, ,,'.."".. "", .." "",,,,, ,".." """" ,,"'''''''''''''''''''' ,,,,,, .. """, .."., """" ".. ,,,,,, .. ,.,:,,., ",,,,,,, ,,,.. ,, " ""'.. " ,.""".""" ', ..""".."..".. , "." "" ,, " '",.. ",,,,, ...

..,," ,. ,,, , "t!..,~ "..,., .. ,.",.,~~ ..~ ~..:,.:: h:: ~ .., ,.,~~.':'., ,s.,~.c!..:, ..,.., "~:2,,~!.,,,.~4-i,~,.~ ,.,.,,~t. ,.:: ,.,., ..!..:-:,:,~,~~.; ..~~,:.:"s::..:,: ,_.,:..~~ .. ,..... ,'= .."" ..i..~, ,.,.~-=,:,." ,..,..~.,:,?.,~"~:,., ,., ,·t.::., , , ~.:.,,?"::~:.~,.,::.: .., , ,~.:~,~,:.,,, , :~~"~.,::."~ .. ::!::~z:..,., ..,,.. ,,,h.r ' ,,,,:t..~::.':..: ~, ..~.~.s,,: .

.....~\! ~." .....,..::.:~;, ...."f~-\~4J.e, ....".(.~.,~~ .... ", ... ", .. .\!,~~~~".:"l.~'\".~, .. ,...,.."....2".L~ ..f~~~==t-.~.,~!..S;.Dtc.. ..,.!~M".L~,~! ........:" ..,

~~::~:~~S:~~~$f:~:~;~::~?;:~~~:<:i;::~~:~:=;:=:~~,:;~~.~:of rfL." -J.---':' e:t J' . F [ .!

....... __ _.C.Zt-::._..L3::'.;2'-'..L }'''-=:'''~~~~~B~~=j..:;:-~:T::::~_':.::~S-- ..f:~'''.~' ~ .

.S=hljL?=~~:=:~:~~."· '.~S: ~~::_~~: .__ ... __.=,

DefCR 1A (Rev. 112002) Print Date (312010)~:ct·~l~s:~f~::-!~~i __~.'i:ri~-t~,:,,~-f.· '-{~i' 1·-~· f oj. j ~ }- ~ -'~- 't 1: i t 'f ~ , ~ ,~ 'i '.~ }- :1>fc :J ~ ~. ~).. 5" '1;, ~._, ,i t- ~ ..~' ~ •.~,.~. ~." ~ ~/1':1: ~ ':b' :-iih~;~.:~~.~'~ __~.r~~::t::~.:.<l:'-~ ...~ ...""~~~.i:~;_td",¥.~J,r5.i.r.f:~~·'~ _L,_I"'"""~i.-.J,~.~a·

.~.

· '. . ,,"""": "','; ,~

' ' .,: ' '. " .'.:" '.' . J::£1.f7i'-,+~o<'-"" 01-'-7 C' Ol..-t. '-....{ "7DISFCT COURT OFMARYLAND F'~~..L.~~ _ " _.." ~..:.." , ",•.. "" "."

~$...,ULOCATEO AT (COURT ADDRESS)

DEFENDANT'S NM4E (LAST. FIRST, MI,)

DC/CR 1A (Rev, 112002) Print Date (312010)~£~r~1~j-t~Lf~1i~~~.)~,!}~f~~_~({'-'~5 ~';_.tt -'f,:~ ~ 1 }t " ~ '.~ ~-. ~ '1-"~:~' 'f 'S ~ 1--! ..,;- ~ 1- l;. ~ \; ~"to t .is- ;'~ \- 'r"1f:''.t~~'~ \-.~ ,'" ~ ~ t..';'t.~~~-:"t-:~-t \; ~-'~Iti-~£.a~:i:+~l'~-~~::i~"' .,:f~~.lo/~"~- .[;~7.~~~.f..:~

~l

~ ! ~ .. ,:~~ :' ~ ..?,~~:--'~=-:=-=---=-==--'------";;;""---....,

L(, 1-"­APPLICATION FOR STATEMENT OF CHARGES (CONTINUED) Page__of-=--"-----'--

".. ", .. ",,,,,,,,y':,,,::,1,,,,~,,,.4..,,:::·,,,,~ ..,~,~,,,,,,,,, .. ,, ",.., "".S?,,,~ ..,,.,,.. ,,,,,,,,,,.S:,~,f,(,J?,~.,:::,,.~,, .. """""."9-.,~,::t:~~L~"g.~,9""".,,, ..,.. ,:,,,,:?,,,~,,:!...,,,,, , "..,." "",'.'"

~ )voL \h I+) ,l ~ -v q <'- i J ! 0. ~:.... £ -e t.Q l ... t \'J (') \..-,. ,~. C C) l-", '1 c... <:- t

:·_:·.:.::::i:~~~~··.:;~~K~·;::::·:~~;;;::··:::=;.:~·~!:::.~~~·;:~;·!:~:..;.;::···:·;~:.l~h:~:V\..A1.:-;' 0 Jellv' Q <; .$ q J )l-. (..> ~.>. L-'\~-"\.. J J 01..,.... Q ......"t- L.. Q ,"".", ",········· ..·r·..":.."..".."" ,' ,.." 'CO" ,••• "" '"'",, '"'''''''''' ,"", " " ,•••••• '"''~'''''''''''''''"""'J" ..,'" ,'''"..,'''" ,'''''''''".,', ,,', .. ,'''''' , ,,,,,, ",' '.',' ' ,,,,,,'.,,, ,,' ", " ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,.,,,, """., ,'.", ,--" "..""""""' '",,,.',,, ,,'

.~ 1-Q'- [;2-4 Q '-O'~ 't 4. 1;;'.......,... GL er(. vL·la'-"1. .1::0 ,i l..Q ~CI,...,L

~~:~:-:~~[~~:~:~~~E::~:~=:::~E~:;-~1E~~::;i~:~:i.t:'?~1~~:~·=-::~::::::·:::~~l~~L~.:::~:~=~:~~:.::~}=~~:~:;~t.~::_:~::~?f~"-·

W 9t..., ( 01, \c: ',\ { v--,.Q ' ....", , .. , '" ,.,,, '"'''' ,. "'" " ,.. " " I~~••"" , ,' ,,,, , " "_,, '"'''' , " ""••" ,"" , , '''''''''' "I' ' , •••-" , ...r..,. ",., '"'' ,,,,, ,II , ,,,,.,,,, '" "'" "'" ,., .. ,,, •• " '•• "" ,"'" .,,,.' " •• ,_ " .. ", """ ,., ,.' ". ,•• ' ~ '<>, "" ,"" " .. ".", " ,_ .." " , " , "" ,"","" "'~" .. ,. "" "" ,,,,, " "" ,. ,,"",,' ,.,. ,,,..,, """ ", ,,, , ,."." , " '.

",.""" ,." .."" .., ,.."""''', ,., "".:=1:~.,::B. ,, ..,,''', 1:"~, ,S".,'~,.,~ .. ,., .., ,,',9.: ,::::'''~~,, ..e::.: ,"., ..,.,.=#:"." "., ..,, ~..,5., ,.,.""".,,"" """.",,,,.,,.,,,,.:,,,,,,,,,,, .. ,.,, :~,, ,, .. ,,,.., ,,,,." "",.~t€~ .. " .. ,,,., ,, , "',, ,"',,.,,", .. ,., ,,,.,,,, ,,".""." " '" ,,, , ,.., ,,,.,,.', ,.., , ",~2.L~; ,~?,.,."L.",S ..".l?,.",C?,..,1,2,.·=,i ,9.,:l5? L..1 " , "..'"'."..",., ,

", ..,., "., ..,". ,.".,,'""'~ ~.,~,, ,~.:r., ..,,.,'''~,.? ". """,.,.,.~ ..~" .. ".,. ,.,::::~.r ..'E"5,:.",~~,.:"i:,", ..,..,." ".,,~,.,.~, ..,j,,.. ,~ ..,..\ "",." ".,,, .x~js, .T".""..""::h, ..~t .. ,!..."" =s,"'''',:.?,, It.

,...... '"..,'.".'"""" ... ,•• ,.. ",,,,, •. ,,,,,,.,,,,.,.,,. ,,, •. ,.,,, •. ,.• ',, •.•. ,.. ',,, "',""."",,.., .... ,•. ,,., ..,, .. ,.... ,.,,, .. ,,,,,.,,,,,,,.''''''''W'''''' ,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,... ',, •. ,,.',... ,.. ,.,,,, .... ,., ....,.,, ",,..,.,,,,.,,., " ",",,, .. ,"'''''',"

........,"",r-:.',." ,""." .. """ ·~·~""';;·'i,e , ,.

.~ A. '---"".•""'"'''''-''''-''''''''''''"''''' ,.. ,,<'.' ",~~ ..!:~:":::::-......,.. ,,,, .. ,,,,. "'.""'"'' ,,,... ,,,,,.. ,, ,.

""." ....".. "'"...~:.~,,, .. :. ,::?~ ..",:,,~ ::;;f.", ", ,", ,,,,,. ""'''''',' "." ,....",1..,2~.", ~~.::::l .. ""...."" ...,,;,: .::.r.:,~.Ur:",,,L.,,~,,,,,,,,.l=,,,>';:',::-.,, ..~......,,c.. ,,..,,,,.... ",.. ,,,

~--!L_("""""~"""""h"'."",, ,.,_" "'" .".... "',..""""~,,...,,,"~, """."_,, ".,~_.. ~~_".,'

. ", "':."""::.'~_._- "_:~':.,.':: ~~"';5~;~~':~~:~:';"""'"'''''''''''''''''''''',, ".:..,..~.•' """..,.."., ,., ,. , ".,.".,." " "".. ".,.,

' 'L ' --=,.1.:"-;"'. 1~~-~-~-=-...";{l " ,., ..,_~ ", ,.,.",c",,". ~1~ \oS" ~.:c' ,::_.·.=~;~'S;~"".,.".,."···· ·· ·" "'".,',, ,,"'.," "'."

DC/CR 1A (Rev.. 112002) Print Date (3/2010)~:J~~2£f1t~~i~j:}:~if~.-(~)::~,);:}:.'_.j.. ~ ,J: ),·~:~).'.'f)'_·f~) ~··-t}',~~J'~~~ ~"(1 •. ¥'. i '!'_'~ ~: ~'.~ lc , ..~ '~ ~'~.~:,,'~ t, 1;<~'~ .'.'.'·f; *',~~~ _~,~~~:~~ 'l)-~~ ~1~~~M~~~¥i:~I~.~~~'?~'¥~~7~i:~t";.-~

:

..,20

1

01 Descl1ption ~

C.l-1S0 ­

S C:ode'~

Flom~ OS/2 "

c

n Dare: I I 01ct:' .CleF;

,J •

EA::iT JEFI=ERSDN

'.. ..­.

, I

II

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

BRETT KIMBERLIN,

Petitioner

v.

AARON WALKER,

Respondent

Case No. 8526D

ORDER OF COURT

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Respondent's Emergency Motion for Partial Stay

or Modification of the District Court Peace Order Pending Appeal, and the matters and

facts stated therein, it is this __ day of June, 2012, by the Circuit Court for Montgomery

County, Maryland,

ORDERED that Respondent's motion to stay part of the peace order is GRANTED;

and, it is further

ORDERED that the Respondent may communicate about the Petitioner on the

internet or any other medium to a general audience, including on the Respondent's website

or Respondent's Twitter account so long as the Respondent does not threaten the

Petitioner or advocate the use of force or other violation of law against Petitioner, or

otherwise incite imminent lawless action against Petitioner, consistent with the Supreme

Court's holding in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S .. 444, 447 (1969), and it is further,

ORDERED, that the District Court peace order shall otherwise remain in effect until

it is heard on de novo appeal on July 5,2012

JUDGE, Circuit Court forMontgomery County, Maryland