Aaron J. Walker, Esq.

[redacted]
Manassas, Virginia 20109
[redacted]
[redacted]

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Honorable Judge George J. Hazel
6500 Cherrywood Lane
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770

Re: Brett Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. GJH-13-3059;

Request to File Memorandum Supplementing Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) and
Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 115), and

Request to File Brief Memorandum in Support of Defendant Twitchys Motion for
Sanctions (ECF No. 41)

Dear Judge Hazel,

In in the interest of brevity, I am combining two requests in compliance with this Courts Case
Management Order of March 4, 2014 (ECF No. 97) and the Letter Order of February 21, 2014 (ECF No.
88) into one letter. Specifically I would like to supplement the record with two short Memoranda that I
believe will aid this court in determining both 1) whether the case should go forward at all, and 2)
whether sanctions are appropriate against the Plaintiff for his admitted alteration of a summons. In both
instances, I am in possession of information that this court can properly consider in relation to both
issues, and the primary purpose of both proposed memoranda is simply to inform the court of those
facts.

First, I have learned last week that Defendant National Bloggers Club, Inc. (NBC) and its successor
entity has received recognition of public charity status under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) by the IRS. This
would bear on both my pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) and my pending opposition to the
Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 115). In both the First Amended Complaint (ECF No.
2) and the proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 100-1), the Plaintiff has alleged, in essence,
that a large number of the Defendants have conspired to mislead the public about NBC being a
501(c)(3)status pending, and that this alleged fraud is a predicate act supporting a claim under
RICO. 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. The Plaintiffs claim that these statements were false was never
actually trueupon information and belief, those Defendants who have commented on NBCs status
have always accurately described its statusbut what has changed is that this court can take judicial
notice of the fact of NBCs recognition, and consider that fact when determining whether this case can
be dismissed, and whether further amendment would be futile.

Accordingly, I propose to file a single, short memorandum simultaneously supporting my motion to
dismiss and my opposition to the Plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint. It will be, at most, five
pages and be unlikely to require more than three exhibits, and it will focus on 1) presenting this
judicially noticeable fact and demonstrating that judicial notice is appropriate, and 2) discussing its
effect on the Plaintiffs false allegations to the contrary and how recognition of this judicially noticeable
fact renders his complaints even less sufficient than before.

Alternatively, if the Plaintiff would like to in good faith admit now that none of the Defendants made
any false statement in relation to NBCs status and withdraw that claim, that would be equally
acceptable. In that case, if the Plaintiff is sufficiently forthright, this proposed memorandum would be
unnecessary.

The second fact I wish to bring to this courts attention is that the Plaintiff has denied in another case
what he has admitted in this one: that he was caught altering a summons. He even denies admitting to it
in this case.

This court is presently considering a motion for sanctions by Defendants Malkin and Twitchy (ECF No.
40) in relation to the Plaintiffs admitted forgery of a summons for Twitchy (Verified Response to
February 21, 2014 Order to Show Cause Re Twitchy Summons, ECF No. 102). Already having been
convicted in relationship to other forgeries,
1
the Plaintiff has admitted to the alteration, but claimed it
was an innocent mistake. Specifically he stated in paragraph 6 that it was an honest mistake and
claimed to show contrition, writing in paragraph 5 that Plaintiff apologizes once again to Defendant
Twitchy and counsel, and to the Court for this misunderstanding.

(The Plaintiff also falsely states (under oath) in paragraph 6 that he has apologized to all parties. He
has never apologized to me, even though he previously claimed that my accusation that he had forged a
document was false.)

As this court might also know, there is a presently another case involving the same Plaintiff and five of
the same Defendants
2
in Maryland Circuit Court, styled as Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. (Md. Mont. Co.
Cir. Ct. 2014) Case No. 380966V (hereinafter the state case). The Plaintiff has vacillated between
claiming that the cases are related (see Plaintiffs Notification of Related Court Ruling, ECF No. 32)
and claiming that they are not (see Plaintiffs Response to Twitchys Memorandum, ECF No. 125
(describing the state case as an unrelated case)).

In the state case, the instant Plaintiff is presently facing summary judgment and dismissal due to his
refusal to participate in large portions of discovery, particularly because he is attempting to invoke his
Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. However, he has answered some requests for

1
United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F. 2d 210, 228 (7
th
Cir. 1986) (detailing how the instant Plaintiff was
caught carrying false documents bearing the Presidential seal and how he attempted to literally eat the
evidence when caught).
2
In addition to myself, he is also suing Mr. Akbar, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hoge and the writer or writers
known as KimberlinUnmasked.
admissions submitted by Mr. Hoge. In them, he was asked to admit he had forged documents in this
case, and he denied it. He even denied admitting to it.

Specifically, Mr. Hoge (by counsel) asked him to admit or deny the following, with Mr. Kimberlins
answers presented in underline:

20. That you have a concurrent lawsuit against Mr. Hoge in Federal Court. Admit
21. That you have been caught altering a Court Document in that Federal Case. Deny
22. That you admitted to Judge Grimm that you did alter a Court Document. Deny

I believe that this information will bear directly on the genuineness of the Plaintiffs professions of
contrition when confessing to the alteration of the summons as does the fact, pointed out by Twitchys
counsel, that he was caught altering certified mail green cards in the state case. See Supplemental
Memorandum of Defendants Michelle Malkin and Twitchy in Support of Request for Dismissal (ECF
No. 41); see also Defendant Hoges Motion For Amended Report of Status of Service (ECF No. 33)
(presenting evidence that the Plaintiff had forged evidence of service in this instant case).

My proposed memorandum in support is not likely to be more than three pages, and two exhibits: 1) a
copy of the Plaintiffs response to Mr. Hoges request for Admissions and 2) an affidavit or declaration
authenticating the document. This information, properly admitted into evidence, is likely to help this
court in making its determination of the appropriateness of sanctions given that faking contrition and
refusing to admit to ones wrongful actions in other contexts is often considered aggravating factors.

Alternatively, if this court intends to hold a hearing on the matter as counsel for Twitchy has requested
(ECF No. 42), I will be happy to present that evidence at that time instead.

I make these requests with one caveat, however: I dont want to delay a favorable outcome in this case.
So if this court is ready to deny the Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend his complaint, and dismiss the
whole matter, anyway, then by all means refuse my request to supplement my motion to dismiss and my
opposition to leave to amend and proceed. And if this court has already decided not to be at all lenient
toward the Plaintiff in response to his forgery of a summons, then deny my request to file a
memorandum in support of sanctions and impose them. I only wish this request to be granted if it is
more likely to bring a favorable outcome in this case, not if its only result is a needless delay.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,



Aaron J. Walker, Esq.