UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT

FORTHEDISTRICTOFMARYLAND
GREENBELTDIVISION
BRETTKIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,
No. GLH13 3059 v.
t" ...,l l":::;
~~ <..nc:
:~~jF~
1,0 - ~.. ::-~
I .-'~::;-'I
.=:- --.~
--'
.. ~-:i ;1
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT ACE OF SPADES' RESPONSE OPPOSITION' -::;
.CO
TO MOTION TO AUTHORIZE SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ..' :,~
-,-
--'"::;
NATIONALBLOGGERSCLUB,
Defendants.
r-
Now comes Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin and replies to Defendant Ace of SpadeS'
Opposition to Motion to Authorize Substituted Service.
1. Plaintiff opposes any filings by Attorney Paul Levy because of conflicts of
interestthat are part of the record in this case. Six months ago, Plaintiff filed
a Motion to Disqualify Mr. Levy, which has not yet been ruled on. Today
Plaintiff asked the Court, by letter, to rule on that motion because the
conflicts continue to adversely affect Plaintiff and Plaintiff never waived his
attorney client relationship with Mr. Levy.
2. Ace of Spades makes misrepresentations to the Court and twists his
arguments into pretzels in order to make them seem appealing.
3. First, Ace argues that Plaintiff should simply move under Brodie for an order
from the Court for discovery of who Ace is by serving his blog hosting
service. However, what Ace and his counsel are withholding from the Court
is that Ace intentionally set up his blog hosting on a .nu urI.
http://ace.mu.nu/ And what does that represent? It's a foreign urI, from an
island off the coast of New Zealand. And why do people set up hosting there?
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l76 Filed 08/04/l4 Page l of 7
.
In order to evade service from United States courts. In other words, what
counsel knows but fails to tell the Court is that a straight up Brodie motion
would be an exercise in futility and a total waste oftime because a Brodie
Order could not be served on the .nu provider. By failing to dislose this
information to the Court, counsel is clearly attempting to mislead the Court
to stall and spin everyone's wheels.
4. It is for this reason that Plaintiff did not file such a frivolous motion. Instead,
Plaintiff focused his service efforts on Ace of Spades' ties to United States
based entities. Plaintiff learned that Ace of Spades uses Intermarkets Inc., to
drive traffic to his website and Intermarkets is located in Reston, Virginia.
Therefore, Intermarkets would likely have records as to the identity of Ace of
Spades. Plaintiff also located the name ofthe registrant of his blog, who lives
in California.
5. Plaintiff made every proper attempt to learn the identity of Ace of Spades so
he could serve him. He contacted the registrant of his website, Michelle Kerr,
by phone and email but got no response. He sent her certified mail with.
copies of the summons and complaint, but it was returned unclaimed. He
then contacted Intermarkets and talked to the senior staff there but was told
to get a subpoena. He then filed for a subpoena in the Alexandria, Virginia US
District Court but was told by the judge there to get a subpoena from the
Clerk of the instant Court. He then requested a subpoena with the clerk but
was told to file a motion for subpoena with this Court, which he did. He
served that motion on Ace of Spades by email and Ace of Spades then
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l76 Filed 08/04/l4 Page 2 of 7

retained Mr. Levyto represent him. These are all "good faith" efforts to serve
Ace of Spades. In fact, Plaintiff cannot think of anything else he could have
done to serve Ace of Spades.
6. Plaintiff, in his Motion for Subpoena, cited Brodie for the proposition that
Brodie requires notice to Ace of Spades and an opportunity to contest any
subpoena. Plaintiff sent that motion to Ace of Spades by email and advised
him of his right to respond.
7. Counsel attempts to mislead the Court through use of the pronoun "her"
throughout his pleadings. Ace of Spades is a male. Plaintiff has provided
photos to the Court of Ace speaking at a conservative conference attended by
thousands of people, and on Fox News, viewed by millions of people. These
public appearances make crystal clear that Ace of Spades does not worry
about remaining anonymous in front of friendly audiences.
8. Maryland rules for alternative service allow the Court to use its discretion to
fashion substituted service: "the court may order any other means of service
that it deems appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably calculated to
give actual notice." Rule 1-121(b). Substituted service on Mr. Levy
constitutes "any other means" and gives "actual notice" to Ace of Spades.
9. Plaintiff has another case pending in the Montgomery County Circuit Court
where two defendants engaged in conduct similar to Ace of Spades. Plaintiff
filed subpoenas and motions attempting to identify them. The defendants
retained an attorney to fight the subpoenas and the Court held several
hearings, each time finding that Plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case of
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l76 Filed 08/04/l4 Page 3 of 7

defamation and met the Brodie standards. Despite this, counsel would not
accept service and eventually withdrew from the case. Plaintiff then filed for
alternative service and, on July 28, 2014, the Circuit Court Judge found that
Plaintiff "made reasonable effort to serve the defendants and that service ...
by electronic mail shall be considered effective service." See attached order.
10. If this Court accepts Mr. Levy's argument that he cannot be ordered to accept
service, this Court can order service by electronic mail, which Mr. Levy
admits is read and received by Ace of Spades.
11. Ace of Spades argues that the sky will fall ifhe is identified. This is without
merit All of the other Defendants in this case have been identified and
hopefully served but the sky did not fall. (** Plaintiff sent all the other
unserved Defendants the Complaint and Summons last week). Why should
Ace of Spades, a United States citizen who uses a USbased company to drive
traffic to his "obscene conservative blog." be granted immunity from service
and suit simply because he hosted his defamatory blog on a foreign server?
Clearly, he anticipated that his defamatory posts would generate legal action
to redress defamation and false light, and that is why he hides and evades
and argues that it is dangerous for him to come into court and defend his
conduct like all the other defendants.
12. Ace of Spades' argument about the First Amendment is specious and wholly
without merit The First Amendment does not protect defamation or
cyberbullying. Defamation is an actionable tort under Maryland law.
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l76 Filed 08/04/l4 Page 4 of 7
Anonymous bloggers do not get a grant of civil immunity simply by virtue of
their anonymity.
13. Ace of Spades is not indigent He spends literally thousands of dollars a year
on Intermarkets to drive traffic to his website, and his website is considered
one of the top conservative blogs in the country. In fact, Ace of Spades "has
won 'Webbies' for 'Best Conservative Blog' (2005 and 2007), Blog of the Year
at the 2013 CPAC,and has also won accolades as the 'Most Obscene
Conservative Blog.''' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_oCSpades_HQ
14. Ace of Spades chose to create his "obscene" blog and defame people, and
therefore he can come into court and defend himself through paid or pro
bono counsel, or he can represent himself as several other defendants are
currently doing.
15. Contrary to counsel's argument, Ace of Spades engaged in wholesale and per
se defamation against Plaintiff, not once, but multiple times. See Complaint
at 30-32. For example, he falsely stated, imputed and published in five
articles that Plaintiff 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," that he is running "scams," that he is
engaged in "lawless viglilantism," 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[ingJ risk taking," that he is "a
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l76 Filed 08/04/l4 Page 5 of 7
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 "lawfare." Not
only did Ace of Spades make these defamatory statements and publications,
he demanded action by others, including Congress, to stop Plaintiff through
various actions including 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. Ace of Spades was using his
defamatory statements to destroy Plaintiff by any means.
16. And yet, with all of the above per se defamation falsely accusing Plaintiff of
the most heinous crimes, Ace of Spades has the audacity, with a straight face
no less, to file pleadings in this Court arguing that the Ace has immunity
under the First AmendmenUo defame Plaintiff. Fortunately, Maryland law
protects its citizens from such defamatory publications.
Wherefore, for all the above reasons, this Court should deny Ace of Spades'
motion in opposition and uphold its order for substituted service.
Respectfully submi
Brett Kimberlin
8100 Beech Tree Rd
Bethesda, MD20817
!usticejtmp@comcast.net
(301) 320 5921
Certification of Service
Plaintiff certifies that he has served this motion on the defendants
their attorneys by email and/or regular mail this 4
th
d Y
Brett Kimberlin
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l76 Filed 08/04/l4 Page 6 of 7
" .
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FORMONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
BRETTKIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff
v.
AARON WALKER, et ai,
Defendants
CASENUMBER: 380966-V
ORDER GRANTING ALTERNATIVE SERVICEFORDEFENDANTS
lYNN THOMAS AND PETERMALONE
In co.nsideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Alternative Service, it is this ~ of
2014, hereby
ORDERED, that pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-121(c), Plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to
serve Defendants Lynn Thomas and Peter Malone by certified mail, restricted delivery to their last
known address, that service pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-121(b) is impracticable. It is further
ORDERED, that pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-121(d), service made as to Defendants Lynn
Thomas and Peter Malone by electronic mail shall be considered effective service.
ounty, Maryland
.ENTERED"
JUL 282014
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Montgomery County, Md.
'....
':.. '
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-GJH Document l76 Filed 08/04/l4 Page 7 of 7