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