MARYLAND: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY BRETT KIMBERLIN, Plaintiff

v.
SETBALLEN, Defendant

Case No. 339254V

EMERGENCY MOTION TO PLACE PLAINTIFF'S "PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOHN DOE AARON WORTHING'S EMERGENCY REQUEST TO SEAL PLAINTIFF'S MOTION" UNDER SEAL AND TO DISMISS THE UNDERLYING INJUNCTION

Now

COMES, John Doe, an anonymous blogger who writes under the names "Aaron

Worthing," and "A.W." and files this motion to place the Plaintiffs "Plaintiffs Response to John Doe Aaron Worthing's Emergency Request to Seal Plaintiffs Motion" (hereinafter "Plaintiffs Response") under seal and to dismiss the underlying injunction against Mr. Allen. From here on in, I will refer to myself in the third person as "Mr. Worthing."
Mr. Worthing files this

emergency motion under this pseudonym in order to maintain the very anonymity he is asking this court to preserve. 1 Once again, and before Mr. Worthing is afforded a chance to file his full response to the Defendanfs original Motion to Unseal (filed on or about January 9, 2012) and before this court

As a preliminary matter, this court has granted Mr. Worthing's motion to file anonymously or to file under seal. In it, Mr. Worthing requested that the court grant Mr. Worthing the right to file anonymously, or to file one copy under seal under his real name, and then file a public copy of the document with his real name omitted. Mr. Worthing interprets the judge's ruling as giving him the option pursuing either option. However, if this court prefers that Mr. Worthing file a copy under seal under his real name, he will happily do so.
I

could rule on the matter, the Plaintiff has taken upon himself to decide what he can and can't reveal in the public record, requiring Mr. Worthing to file a second emergency motion to place the Plaintiff's blatantly improper filing under seal because he chose to use a court filing to reveal
Mr. Worthing's true name, as well as his address and other personal information that this court

had already placed under seal. This time the Plaintiff did so by filing a motion that revealed this information by including it in his Exhibit C, a document where he remarkably confesses to have engaged in deliberate course of conduct designed to create "the very real probability that [Mr. Worthing] could be subjected to serious harm or death." Exhibit C, page 2. The Plaintiff could have filed this response under seal, but again deliberately chose to make it part of the public record in order to intentionally expose Mr. Worthing to the very threat he pretends to be concerned about. And once again the Plaintiff has lied to this court. For instance, in paragraph 2 of the Plaintiff's Response, he writes:
Mr. Worthing published a book this month called "Archangel," which amounts to a direct assault on Muslims worldwide. It is an alternative history of September 11, 2001 in which a superhero appears and kills all the Muslims, including the female Muslim "bitches" and j ihadist "whores."

This is demonstrably false. The character does not kill all Muslims on Earth or even all that he sees; indeed he doesn't harm a single innocent Muslim. In fact, he actually saves the lives of many Muslims. A large sequence of the novel involves the hero saving a Muslim-American CIA agent and the Iraqi family he is embedded with from Saddam Hussein's evil regime and the character does so with the aid and under the command of several Muslims who are part of an American Special Forces Unit. Far from being an indiscriminate "assault" on all Muslims, Mr. Worthing's novel draws a sharp distinction between Islamofascist terrorists and ordinary Muslims. 2

Indeed, the term "Muslim bitch" only appears once in the novel and is depicted as being said by an intolerant character which the superhero stops by his superpowers (telekinesis). Here is full context: [Michael Sanchez, the superhero in the story] landed to fmd a couple drunken, angry youths chasing a woman in a Muslim veil. The woman stumbled because her ability to flee was hampered by clothing that covered her entire body except for her eyes. The youths fell in toward her, a dangerous mix of fear and hate filling their hearts. "Stop!" he shouted, and threw up his hand, his palm flat out. The charging men knocked back as if they had hit a brick wall. "Why are you taking their side?" one shouted. "This isn't up for discussion," he said, "if you run away now, I won't turn you over to the police." "Don't walk alone at night, Muslim bitch," one said, as they both turned and jogged away. So rather than "kill[ing] all the Muslims, including the female Muslim 'bitches'" the superhero is actually depicted as saving a Muslim woman from men filled with "hate and fear" who call her a "Muslim bitch." Meanwhile, there is not a single reference to a Muslim ("Jihadisf' or not) as a "whore." It is a complete fabrication. 2 In addition to that lie, the Plaintiff also claims that [p]rior to filing the motion identifying Mr. Worthing, Plaintiff sent Mr. Worthing's attorney an offer to settle the issues relating to Mr. Worthing's identity and informed her that if the offer was not accepted or dealt with in good faith, Plaintiff would file the motion. First, it is interesting that the Plaintiff thinks that it helps his case to admit to this court that he has abused the settlement process in an attempt to extort Mr. Worthing. The irony is that even

This novel is available only as a kindle book on amazon. com. However, at this court's request, Mr. Worthing will be happy to provide a free digital copy so that this court can verify the falsity of the Plaintiffs' claims for himself.
2

though his settlement offer is now the subject of a criminal complaint of extortion, the Plaintiff is lying when he states that he provided any warning (by threat or otherwise) to Mr. Worthing that he would file the Motion to Withdraw he did file before this court revealing his identity. Indeed, this court has a copy of that settlement offer as Plaintiff's Exhibit D and Mr. Worthing respectfully asks this court to read it for himself. The Plaintiff did not warn or threaten Mr. Worthing that he intended to reveal his name to the world in a court filing in that settlement agreement or in any other way, prior to his blatantly improper filing on or about January 5, 2011.
It is also interesting that the Plaintiff thinks it helps his case that he is now confessing by

January 3,2012, he already knew Mr. Worthing's true identity. Indeed, in paragraph 15 of the Plaintiffs Response, the Plaintiff stated that the "Plaintiff has known of Mr. Worthing's true identity for a month[.]" Conservatively, that means the Plaintiff has known of Mr. Worthing's identity since December 27, 2011. This means that the Plaintiff allowed Mr. Worthing to take the time and effort to file before this court on December 29, 2011, without informing him or the court that his subpoenas were mooted. This means that the Plaintiff allowed Google.com to file its response on January 5, without informing them or the court that his subpoenas were mooted. Indeed, the Plaintiff didn't even serve his Motion to Withdraw on Comcast so that they needlessly sent the Plaintiff their response without knowing he had moved to withdraw the motion, on or about January 10,2011. Further, since the Plaintiff is now confessing that he knew the real name of "Aaron Worthing" when he sent this settlement offer, then this is also a confession that he made that offer in bad faith. In that settlement offer, the Plaintiff stated that "I will not make any future attempt to identify Mr. Worthing in any manner." This implies that he had not yet identified Mr. Worthing's true identity, but according to his filing today, he had already done so by that date.

The lies continue in the very next line:

Mr. Worthing responded to the offer by publicly posting a confidential email Plaintiff had written to his attorney, and that post mocked, insulted and ridiculed Plaintiff.

There was no confidential email to Mr. Worthing's attorney, because it would be unethical for his attorney to communicate confidentially with his opponent without Mr. Worthing's consent, a point Mr. Worthing made in the very post that the Plaintiff complains about, attached as Exhibit A to this filing. Throughout all of Mr. Worthing's interactions with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has apparently believed that he can unilaterally declare his communications to be private without the consent of the recipient. He has done this to Mr. Worthing twice, and did so when emailing Ms. Kinsley as well. He also doesn't mention that the email he wrote-that he demanded everyone's silence about-was a thuggish threat to fIle ethics charges against Mr. Worthing and his attorney. These charges were indeed so frivolous at one point in the email he cited a rule that doesn't exist (an alleged Maryland Lawyer's Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(g)). become the subject of a criminal complaint for extortion. But it is revealing that the Plaintiff complains that Mr. Worthing "mocked, insulted and ridiculed Plaintiff' in paragraph 5 and implies that he filed his plainly improper the Motion to Withdraw on or about January 5, 2011, in retaliation for that mockery. Thus the Plaintiffs own words confess that he has a improper purpose in filing that motion.
In paragraph 6, the Plaintiff states dishonestly that Mr. Worthing continues to publish the very motions he asked this Court to seal relating to Plaintiff (and which the Court did seal), while he complains that Plaintiffs response should remain sealed.

This email has also

This is a misstatement of what Mr. Worthing asked of this court and what was granted. Mr. Worthing moved this court to allow him to proceed before this court anonymously. He moved that this court allow him to go forward in one of two ways: 1) by allowing Mr. Worthing to file anonymously, or 2) by allowing Mr. Worthing to file one copy of all filings under seal with his real name and contact information, and then to file a copy in which that information was redacted that would be served on the other parties. Mr. Worthing has never asked that the December 29, 2011 motions to be placed completely under seal, only his name and contact

information and any other information that tends to identify him.

The dishonesty continues in paragraph 9:
Mr. Worthing has already been identified on Twitter by veteran journalist and news magazine editor Ron Bryneart, thereby negating any argument by Mr. Worthing for shielding his identity.

This is not a lie so much as truth so selective as to be deliberately misleading. First, as Mr. Worthing demonstrated in his December 29, 2011 filing, Mr. Brynaert is a willing conduit for information that the Plaintiff wishes to put into the public sphere. Indeed, in a recent tweet he has confessed to receiving information funneled to him by the Plaintiffs associate Neal Rauhauser, attached as Exhibit B. Mr. Brynaert did so even though he has publicly stated that
Mr. Rauhauser is an unreliable source-the dictionary definition of legal malice, attached as

Exhibit C. Indeed, the conduct of the Plaintiff, Mr. Brynaert, and Mr. Rauhauser is now the subject of a lawsuit in Virginia, filed Monday, including an allegation of a violation of VA.
CODE

18.2-499, a criminal statute outlawing conspiracies to unlawfully harm another in their business and reputation. So what the Plaintiff leaves out is that Mr. Brynaert has disclosed this in a tweet that upon information and belief was the result ofthe Plaintiff's own actions.

And it implies that Mr. Brynaert is presently a journalist or editor of a news magazine. But upon information and belief, he is not. Further, the Plaintiff has misrepresented the issue presently before this court. The issue is whether the Plaintiff should be given the "fig leaf' that he is only reproducing court documents if he reveals Mr. Worthing's identity to the world. The Plaintiff says that Mr. Worthing's

argument that revealing his name to the world would violate VA. CODE 18.2-46.5(C) "is without merit." If that is the case, then he doesn't need the privilege of reproducing court documents to shield him. The fact that he has tried three times to put Mr. Worthing's real name into the court's record shows he is desperate to be able to claim that "fig leaf' so he can expose
Mr. Worthing to death or bodily injury by terrorists without legal consequences, a manifestly

improper purpose. The dishonesty continues in paragraph 13, when the Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Worthing "physically assaulted Plaintiff." Mr. Worthing did no such thing. The charges are based on nothing more than the word of a convicted perjurer and are the subject of a criminal complaint for filing a false police report. Mr. Worthing expects that these charges will be dropped before they go to trial. In any case, this court should wisely conclude that it needs more evidence than the word of a convicted perjurer before it takes that as a given fact.
In paragraph 14, the plaintiff lies again by saying Mr. Worthing

inserted himself in the present case by conspiring with a known stalker and aided and abetted him after that stalker threatened to murder Plaintiff. First, Mr. Worthing has already pointed out in his December 29, 2011 filing that not only did he in fact never conspire with Mr. Allen, but the Plaintiff failed to even properly allege such a conspiracy existed or present evidence of one. Second, contrary to the Plaintiffs implication
Mr. Worthing did not "aid and abet" any ruminations about murder by Mr. Allen, and his
7

rumination about murdering the Plaintiff, albeit extremely ill-advised, was not cause to cease providing him legal advice on the separate matter of Mr. Allen's defense in this civil matter, slight though it was. But the biggest lie of all is in paragraph 4: "Plaintiff has no desire to see Mr. Worthing harmed by anyone[.]" This is plainly belied by his actions. As the Plaintiff has admitted, he wrote to the FBI, the Fairfax County Police Department, and the Manasssas Police Department. Contrary to his suggestion that this was solely about Mr. Worthing's fears, he himself states in the letter that "there exists the very real probability that [Mr. Worthing] could be subjected to serious harm or death now that his identity has been exposed" (plaintiffs Exhibit C, page 2). When he wrote that letter and email, the only person exposing Mr. Worthing's identity was the Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs purpose in writing this letter was not to protect Mr. Worthing's life. If he wanted to do that, he wouldn't have exposed Mr. Worthing to that danger in the first place. The plain purpose of the Plaintiffs letter was revealed in the last lines: Moreover, because he lives in a townhouse with many adjacent neighbors, and works in a large building with hundreds of other people, any attack against him could result in collateral harm to others. In light of these concerns, I strongly urge your agencies to develop a plan to protect not only Mr. Walker and his wife from any such harm both at work and in their home, but also to protect those who live and work near them. His goal in writing this letter was to ensure the maximum disruption Mr. Worthing's life, hoping that the police would inform both his work and his neighbors of the threat, and not because he was shedding any crocodile tears over the threat against Mr. Worthing-a threat that is wholly of his creation. This court should not allow itself to become the tool by which Mr. Worthing's life is threatened as well as those who work and live near him. This is the third time Mr. Worthing has

been forced to make an emergency motion to this court to prevent the Plaintiff from using this court as a means to endanger Mr. Worthing's life. Indeed many of the lies here, particularly alleging that Mr. Worthing is prejudiced toward Muslims, that his Everyone Draw Mohammed Website was an anti-Muslim blog (a strange accusation given that Muslims participated in it) or that that his book features a character who "kills all the Muslims, including the female Muslim 'bitches' and jihadist 'whores'" were calculated to increase the chances of Mr. Worthing being the victim of a Islamofascist terrorist attack. That is, this convicted terrorist is trying to get other terrorists to do his dirty work for him, using this court as an instrument to carry out his improper purpose. Therefore Mr. Worthing respectfully requests that this court immediately place the "Plaintiffs Response to John Doe Aaron Worthing's Emergency Request to Seal Plaintiffs Motion," filed on or about January 27,2011 under seal. In addition to this, the Plaintiff has demonstrated for the third time that he is bound and determined to use his fillings before this court to intentionally endanger the life of Mr. Worthing.
It is plain that these efforts will continue so long as this case is open. Further, the Plaintiffs

misconduct is proper grounds for dismissal of the underlying injunction. Those who seek equity must do equity, and the Plaintiff's conduct toward Mr. Worthing has been nothing less than appalling. The Plaintiff has literally tried to get Mr. Worthing killed as well as anyone near him. Therefore Mr. Worthing respectfully requests that this court dismiss the underlying injunction because the Plaintiff's hands are no longer clean, if they ever were. Alternatively, Mr. Worthing requests that this court place a protective order ensuring that every single motion by Mr. Kimberlin filed in the future is immediately placed under seal, even if it does not appear to be related to Mr. Worthing.

Further. this court should sanction Mr. Kimberlin for this latest improper filing, and provide any other relief that this court considers to be just and equitable. A proposed order is attached. Dated: February 1,2012

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Aaron Worthing Edmd5.20.1O@gmail.com AaronJW@gmail.com

10