Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GREENBELT DIVISION
r' c '-,
.,.
o .
, .
7 .. --
L L j 'IlL.;
!/ P
t~.,., ", _
t\ I
. J
v. No. PWG 13 3059
NATIONALBLOGGERSCLUB, etal
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WALKER'S MOTION
TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT AND TO STRIKE
Now comes Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin and responds in opposition to Defendant
Aaron Walker's Motion to Exceed Page Limit and his Motion to Strike. In support of
this motion, Plaintiff states (1) the request violates Court rules, (2) Defendant
Walker is not licensed to practice law in the State of Maryland, (3) DeFendant
Walker does not represent any oFthe other DeFendants for whom he asks relieF, and
(4) DeFendant Walker has filed the documents For the improper purpose of
introducing prejudicial and false information into the record so he and others can
post it on the Internet and raise more funds from their readers.
The Pleadings Violate The Court's Rules
1. DeFendant Walker admits that his Response violates Local Rule 105.3, which
limits a Reply to 25 pages. Yet he asks to violate that Rule in essence to
"
respond to Plaintiffs Responses to other Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.
2. Defendant Walker requests to exceed the Reply page limit by seven pages (32
pages total in the Reply). But in reality, he is asking to exceed the limit by
vastly more pages because he filed a separate Motion to Strike which is
another 25 pages, and which just continues on where his Reply left off. In
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document 6l Filed 02/ll/l4 Page l of 6
fact, the relief in that Motion to Strike is to reject Plaintiffs Response and
other pleadings not only for himself but also for other Defendants. Clearly,
this Court should deny Defendant's Walker's blatant attempt to circumvent
the rules.
Defendant Walker Is Not Licensed To Practice In Maryland Courts
3. Defendant Walker submits his pleadings at "Aaron Walker Esq. Va Bar#
48882." However, Defendant Walker is not licensed to practice law in
Maryland.
4. Rule 101 (l)(a) states the following:
1. Who MayAppear as Counsel; Who MayAppear Without Counsel
a) Generally. Except as otherwise provided in this Rule and in L.R.112.3 and
28 U.S.C.~ 515, only members of the Bar of this Court may appear as
counsel in civil cases. Individuals who are parties in civil cases may only
represent themselves." (emphasis added).
5. Defendant Walker has not requested to appear pro hac vice and has not
sought local counsel to represent him as required by Local Rule 101 (l)(b)(i).
6. Defendant Walker is using his legal status to file his pleadings without
complying with the Local Rules. Clearly, this Court should only allow
Defendant Walker to proceed pro se, unless he seeks permission to file pro
hac vice and finds local counsel to represent him in that capacity.
7. Ifhe files to proceed pro hac vice, he will have to prove that he is a Member
of the Virginia Bar in good standing, which could be difficult in light of his
unemployed and unemployable status after being terminated from his last
legal position two years ago for anonymously publishing a blog dedicated to
insulting the Prophet Mohammed.
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document 6l Filed 02/ll/l4 Page 2 of 6