ECF 232 Redacted

download ECF 232 Redacted

of 15

  • date post

    13-Apr-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    227
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of ECF 232 Redacted

  • 7/26/2019 ECF 232 Redacted

    1/15

    DEPUTY

    BRETT KIMBERLIN,

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    FILEDU.S. DISTRICT COURT

    DISTRICT OF /1' RYUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ,\. LAND

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND201~DEC 12 PH 3: 33

    GREENBELT DIVISION CL,I)"'" -_.\/\ S Ot FICE

    AT GREENBELT

    BY

    {;)UNo. GJH 133059

    NATIONAL BLOGGERSCLUB, et al

    Defendants.

    MOTION TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT ACE OF SPADES, THE PERSON

    Now comes Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin, pursuant to this Court's December 8,2014

    letter order, and moves this Court to issue an order to counsel for Defendant Ace of

    Spades the person ("AOS"), to identify him.

    1. As Judge Hollander ruled recently in another case of anonymous Internet

    blogging, Plaintiff has a right to the identity of an anonymous blogger defendant

    who has engaged in tortious conduct against him. In re Subpoena of Daniel Drasin.

    Case 1:13-cv-01140-ELH 07/24/13. Judge Hollander's nine-page decision effectively

    states the prevailing law and is attached for the Court's consideration. In the instant

    case, Plaintiff also needs that information to effectively respond to Defendant ADS's

    Motion to Dismiss,

    2, AOS has notice that Plaintiff has sought his identity. Plaintiff has repeatedly

    sought that identity him for the past 12 months, AOS has had an opportunity to seek

    to keep his identity anonymous but all of his motions through two different

    attorneys have been unsuccessful. On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff specifically but

    without success asked counsel for AOS's identity in order to save time and judicial

    resources. See Plaintiffs attached declaration,

    !"#$ &'()*+,*-)-./*012 34+56$78 9)9 :;(9>(? @"A$ ( 4B ?

  • 7/26/2019 ECF 232 Redacted

    2/15

    3. As stated in Plaintiffs Complaint and in his Global Response to Motions to

    Dismiss, ADS engaged in wholesale and per se defamation against Plaintiff, not once,

    but multiple times. See SACat 30-32, GR 45-6. For example, he falsely stated,

    imputed and published in five articles that Plaintitf committed the crime of

    "swattings," that he was involved with terrorism" and "murder," that he was trying

    to "kill" people, that he is a "thug" and "nefarious,"Jhat he is running "scams," that

    he is engaged in "lawless vigilantism," that he is involved with "ongoing crimes," that

    he is engaged in "alarming harassments," that he is a "menace," that he is a "one-man

    crime wave," that he is "escalating" his criminal activities, that he is engaged in a

    "crime in progress," that he is "abusing and corrupting" the justice system, that his

    life is one of "escalat(ing) risk taking." that he is "a dangerous man," that he is

    engaged in "digital" and "real life terrorism," that he is a "malicious threat to

    society," and that he is engaged in "Iawfare." Not only did ADS make these

    defamatory statements and publications, he demanded action by others, including

    Congress, to stop Plaintiff through various actions including imprisonment and

    passing a bill of attainder. His publications were a call to arms against Plaintiff

    based on defamatory hysteria-either stop Plaintiff or terrible things will happen.

    ADS was using his defamatory statements to destroy Plaintiff by any means.

    4. ADS's limited right to anonymous speech is greatly outweighed by Plaintiffs

    right to know who has committed tortious conduct against him. Drasin, supra at 7-

    8, and In re Anonymous, 661 F.3d at 1176 (recognizing "the great potential for

    irresponsible, malicious, and harmful communication and that particularly in the

    !"#$ &'()*+,*-)-./*012 34+56$78 9)9 :;(9>(? @"A$ 9 4B ?

  • 7/26/2019 ECF 232 Redacted

    3/15

    age of the Internet, the speed and power of internet technology makes it difficult for

    the truth to 'catch up' to the lie").

    5. Plaintiff does not have AOS's identity and this handicaps him with regard to

    his response to AOS's motion to dismiss. For example, if AOS'works for the

    Government, Plaintiff could show that his actions also fell under 42 USC 1983. If

    AOS's name is on documents already in Plaintiffs possession, such as emails,

    Plaintiff could show that he committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy

    and RICO. If AOS is working for someone or some entity to target Plaintiff, that

    would be a relevant factor in this case.

    6. Moreover, AOS should not be given special treatment not given other

    defendants in this case, all of whom are identified.

    7. The only other anonymous defendant in this case, KimberinUnmasked, was

    identified pursuant to an Order issued by Judge Algeo from the Montgomery County

    Circuit Court, Case No. 380966 CVon November 4,2013.

    11/04/2013 Docket

    Number: 26

    Docket Description:

    Docket Type:

    Ruling Judge:

    Reference Docket(s):

    Docket Text:

    HEARING

    Ruling Filed By: Court Status: Granted

    ALGEO, MICHAEL J

    Motion: 3 Opposition: 24

    HEARING (ALGEO, J.) ON PlAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRE-

    ACTION DISCLOSURE DIRECTING GOOGlE.COM AND/OR ITSSUBSIDIARY BlOGGER.COM TO TO DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY AND

    ADDRESS OF DEFENDANT ANONYMOUS CYBERSTAlKER,

    KlMBERLINUNMASKED (DE#3) -GRANTED. ORDER SIGNED.

    PlAINTIFF APPEARED PRO SE. MR. DEL BIANCO APPEARED ONBEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT ANONYMOUS BlOGGER. MR.

    REINGOLD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT GOOGlEINC. DEFENDANT'S AARON WALKER, WILLIAM HOGE SR., AND

    ROBERT MCCAIN NOT PRESENT.

    !"#$ &'()*+,*-)-./*012 34+56$78 9)9 :;(9>(? @"A$ ) 4B ?

  • 7/26/2019 ECF 232 Redacted

    4/15

    Once that identity was known, KimberlinUnmasked, aka Lynn Thomas, resolved that

    state case and two federal cases Plaintiff filed against her.

    8. In the case ofADS, his anonymity is hampering any possibility of Plaintiffs

    resolving and settling this case with him.

    Wherefore, for all these reasons, Plaintiff moves this Court to order counsel to

    identify ADS.

    Certificate of Service

    I certify that I emailed a copy of this motion to Ron Coleman and all other

    current attorneys in this case and Lee Stranahan and AliAkbar, and mailed a copy to

    Defendants Walker, Hoge, McCainand attorney Michael Smith this 12'h day of

    December, 2014.

    !"#$ &'()*+,*-)-./*012 34+56$78 9)9 :;(9>(? @"A$ ? 4B ?

  • 7/26/2019 ECF 232 Redacted

    5/15

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

    GREENBELT DIVISION

    BRETT KIMBERLIN,Plaintiff,

    v.

    NATIONAL BLOGGERSCLUB, et al

    Defendants.

    No. GJH 13 3059

    DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF BRETT KIMBERLIN RE ACE OF SPADES

    I, Brett Kimberlin, declare, under penalty of perjury and pursuant to 28 USC

    1746, that the following is true and correct.

    1. I have been trying for the pastyearto learn the identity of Ace of Spades,

    a defendant in this case. I sought subpoenas in both Virginia and

    Maryland federal courts, 1 contacted business associates of his and his

    website registrar, I asked his attorneys, and I followed tips that came to

    me.

    2. I have notified. Ace of Spades through his emails and his attorneys that I

    need to know his identity to effectively prosecute this case.

    3. I feel handicapped in my ability to respond to Ace of Spades' motion to

    dismiss because I do not know his identity.

    4. 1have filed motions in two other state cases involving anonymous

    bloggers and in both cases the Montgomery County Circuit Court judges

    granted my motions to identify the bloggers. In one case, after a trial, I

    won a defamation suit against the blogger. In the other case, the

    !"#$ &'()*+,*-)-./*012 34+56$78 9)9*( :;(9>(? @"A$ ( 4B 9

  • 7/26/2019 ECF 232 Redacted

    6/15

    defendant settled after being identified, That second defendant was also

    a defendant in this federal case and she resol

    time.

    Dated this 12th day of December. 2014

    !"#$ &'()*+,*-)-./*012 34+56$78 9)9*( :;(9>(? @"A$ 9 4B 9

  • 7/26/2019 ECF 232 Redacted

    7/15

    Case 1:13-cv-01l40-ELH Document 8 Filed07/24/13 Page 1 of 9

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

    In re SUBPOENA OF DANIELDRASIN

    ADVANCED CAREER

    TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    JOHN DOES 1-10, all whose true

    names are unknown,

    Defendants.

    Civil Action No. ELH-I3-1140

    (Related Case: Case No. I3-cv-00304 in

    the United States District Court for theDistrict of Colorado)

    MEMORANDUM

    Advanced Career Technologies, Inc. ("ACT"), plaintiff, sued ten John Doe defendants in

    federal court in Colorado, based on allegedly defamatory comments posted anonymously on

    "Random Convergence," an internet blog administered by Daniel Drasin, located at

    http://randomconvergcncc.blogspot.coml. In particular, ACT lodged claims for "trade IibcV

    commercial disparagement," violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, IS U.S.C. ~ 1125(a),

    and violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. ~ 6-1-105. See

    Verified Complaint ("Complaint," ECF I-I).

    On March 11,2013, Magistrate Judge Kristin Mix of the United States District Court for

    the District of Colorado authorized expedited discovery, and granted ACT's motion for leave to

    serve third party subpoenas on Drasin, a resident of Maryland.1

    Two subpoenas were issued to

    Drasin by this Court, commanding him, in his individual capacity