ECF 104 Redacted

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

GREENBELT DIVISION
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL BLOGGERSCLUB, etal
Defendants.
No. PWG 13 3059
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO ACE OF SPADE'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY TO IDENTIFY ACE OF SPADES
Now comes Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin and replies to Defendant Ace of Spades'
("Ace") opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for a Subpoena to identifY Ace.
Statement
1. Plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, cannot simply issue a subpoena in this case.
Instead, he has to request from the Court that the subpoena be issued.
2. Plaintiff has been unable to serve Defendant Ace despite his best efforts at
contacting Ace via email, contacting the registrant of his blog. and sending
the suit, certified mail, to that registrant, only to have it returned.
3. Ace runs his blog through an offshore host that does not respond to orders
from American courts. Therefore, Plaintiff sought to learn the identity and
address of Ace through a Virginia based company, Intermarkets, he pays to
drive traffic to his site.
4. Plaintiff contacted Intermarkets several times by phone and talked with their
executive staff and asked for the name and address of Ace but was told that.
lntermarkets would only provide that information via subpoena. Therefore,
1
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l04 Filed 03/ll/l4 Page l of l9
because Intermarkets is located in Reston, Virginia, Plaintiff filed a Motion
with the Alexandria USDistrict Court under the miscellaneous docket asking
for a subpoena. Ahearing was held and the Judge told Plaintiff that he had to
get the subpoena from this Court
5. Plaintiff then asked the Clerk of this Court to issue the subpoena so Plaintiff
could identifYand serve Ace, but was told that Plaintiff would have to request
the subpoena from the Court, which Plaintiff did. That motion is what
triggered Ace's Opposition to Discovery.
6. This Court has not issued the subpoena and it has not been served on
lntermarkets yet Ace has asked the Court to deprive Plaintiff of his statutory
right to a subpoena to serve a litigant in this case. This request for special
immunity from suit is without merit and grossly unfair to all the other
Defendants who have been served and are engaged in the legal process set
forth by statute.
7. Ace has waived his anonymity by making public appearances both at major
conferences and as a commentator on FOXNews before millions of people.
ACE'S LAWYER IS LABORING UNDER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
8. Ace's counsel, Paul Levy, prepared his motion, communicated with Ace,
communicated with Plaintiff, and wrote about the motion in a blog post. Mr.
Levy has also been Plaintiffs attorney and is using that attorney-client
relationship against Plaintiffs interests.
9. Initially, Plaintiff moves this Court to disqualifYattorney Paul Alan Levy from
representing Defendant Ace because of his many conflicts of interest In
2
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l04 Filed 03/ll/l4 Page 2 of l9
support of this motion, Plaintiff states (1) Mr. Levy has represented Plaintiff
in past legal matters and has consulted with him on various matters recently,
(2) Mr. Levy represented Plaintiffs anonymous co-defendant in Aaron
Walker v. Brett Kimberlin, and Aaron Walker is a Defendant in the present
case, (3) Mr. Levy contacted that anonymous defendant after filing his
motion in this case with an ominous warning for her to tell Plaintiff to back
off this case, (4) Mr. Levy published a blog post attacking Plaintiff and sent
that post to his prior client which she considered to be improper influence
and a threat to turn on the former client like Mr. Levy has turned on Plaintiff,
and (5) Defendant Ace published a blog post after the filing asking his many
readers to donate money to Mr. Levy.
FACTS REQUIRING DISQUALIFICATION
Prior Representation Of Plaintiff
The attorney-client privilege exists to protect the client's interests, and therefore,
only the client can decide whether to waive its protections. In the instant case,
Plaintiff has taken all reasonable steps to prevent any waiver of the privilege. As
Plaintiff states in his attached affidavit, Mr. Levy formally represented Plaintiff in
past civil matters. Exhibit A. Also, over the past several years, Plaintiff has had
several discussions with Mr. Levy that fall under the attorney client rubric. Plaintiff
has never waived his attorney client relationship with Mr. Levy and in fact, prior to
Mr. Levy's filing in this case, Plaintiff informed Mr. Levy that he would be laboring
under a conflict of interest if he represented Defendant Ace. Id. Despite this
warning, Mr. Levy went ahead with his conflicted representation.
3
Prior Representation Of Plaintiffs Civil Co-Defendant
In 2012, Defendant Aaron Walker sued Plaintiff in this Court in Walkerv.
Kimberlin et ai, case number JFM12-1852, which was assigned to Judge Motz. One
of the other defendants in that case was an anonymous bIogger named
BreitbartUnmasked. ("BU") Mr. Levy represented BUin that case when Defendant
Walker and Defendant DBCapitol Strategies, which was the law firm representing
Defendant Walker, attempted to learn the identity of BU. Mr. Levy contacted
Attorney Dan Backer, the attorney for DBCapitol Strategies, to discuss removing BU
from that case, which Mr. Backer rejected.
In the instant case, part ofthe RICOcase allegation is that Dan Backer, on behalf
of Defendants Aaron Walker and DBCapitol Strategies, engaged in extortion by
attempting to get Plaintiff fired from his employment with Justice Through Music in
exchange for dismissing Justice Through Music from the suit Shortly after that
extortion attempt, Judge Motz dismissed the case out of hand as without merit.
Improper Threat By Mr. Levy
Mr. Levywrote a blog post about his filing in this case that constitutes a direct
attack on Plaintiff in a way that an attorney should not do to a former client Exhibit
B. He then immediately sent that post to his former client BUwith a link to the post
and the following ominous language: ''I'm afraid your buddy Brett has gone too far.
4
Maybe his friends can talk him out of this."
From: Paul Alan Levy [maillo
Sent Tuesday. February 18. 201411:58 PI,!
To: BU'
Subject: I am afraid your buddy Brett has gone 100 far
http://pU 001 !>'Pepad comlcl p010g12014102/orett-'] mDe~i ns-atta ck-on-fre e-s peech. hIm I
Maybe his friends can talK him out oflhis
According to a blog post on the SU website, this email was taken by SU as an
attempt by Mr. Levy to improperly influence this case and as a veiled threat that if
SU wanted to remain anonymous, she had better tell Plaintiff to back off of this
lawsuit Exhibit C.
Improper Quid Pro Quo By Mr. Levy And Defendant Ace
Shortly after Mr. Levy wrote his blog post attacking Plaintiff. Defendant Ace
published his own blog post, in which he asked his readers to donate to Mr. Levy to
reward him for representing Defendant Ace. Exhibit D. That post has had close to
300 comments and many of his readers stated that they were donating to Mr. Levy.
Argument on Disqualification
Mr. Levy is laboring under a conflict of interest because he previously
represented Plaintiff, he previously represented co-defendant of Plaintiffs in case
brought by two of the Defendants in the instant case, and he is now accepting money
from Defendant Ace of Spade's readers in order to attack Plaintiff. This is adversely
affecting Plaintiff.
As Plaintiff states in his declaration, he did not waive his attorney-client
relationship with Mr. Levy and specifically invoked it when he learned that Mr. Levy
was planning to represent Defendant Ace. Plaintiff now believes that Mr. Levy will
5
use confidences he has learned from Plaintiff to adversely affect Plaintiff. In fact, Mr.
Levy has already adversely attacked Plaintiff in his filing and in his blog post on
behalf of Ace.
Mr. Levy has also made an implied threat to his former client BUthat she had
better tell Plaintiff to back off of this case or Mr. Levy was going to harm Plaintiffs
interests, and he linked to the blog post to show BUwhat he was capable of doing to
a former client if he did not heed such warnings. BU felt that Mr. Levy was
threatening her and improperly trying to get her to influence Plaintiff to drop this
legal action, which would be adverse to Plaintiffs interests.
Mr. Levy's conflicts of interest are multiple and violate many provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and ABA Model Code of Professional
Responsibility. These are:
DR2-101-Publicity in General.
(A) -A lawyer shall not, on behalf of himself, his partner, associate or any other
lawyer affiliated with him or his firm, use or participate in the use of any form of
public communication containing a false, fraudulent, misleading. deceptive, self-
laudatory or unfair statement or claim.
Mr. Levy used his blog post to make false, deceptive, self-laudatory and unfair
statements or claims about this case and about Plaintiff. For example, he states:
"Released from prison in 2000, Brett Kimberlin has now turned his jailhouse lawyer
skills on a new pool of victims: Bloggers who dare to publicly mention, on their
small-scale electronic newspapers, Brett Kimberlin's criminal record. And the
avalanche of frivolous, vexatious, and outright malicious lawsuits begins anew, as
well as more alarming harassments.
To portray the Defendants in this case as "victims" is preposterous, and to state
that they are small-time electronic newspapers is incredible, or to state that Plaintiff
has filed an avalanche of frivolous, vexations, and outright malicious lawsuits
6
"anew" as well as more alarming harassments is outright defamation. Plaintiff is the
victim who has been falsely accused by the Defendants of serious crimes in a multi-
year campaign. Defendants Beck, Malkin, Ace, James O'Keefe, Simon & Schuster and
the others are not small scale by any stretch of the word since they reach tens of
millions of readers and viewers and have a combined worth in the hundreds of
millions. What does Mr. Levy mean by "anew?" He has not identified any other
frivolous, vexations, and outright malicious lawsuits brought by Plaintiff because
there are none. And what other "alarming harassments" is he talking about? Is he
alleging that Plaintiff is involved with swattings?
And Mr. Levy states:
Various sides have sought my assistance in connection with various aspects of this
series of lawsuits ..... On the other hand, at one point I agreed to represent an
anonymous blogger in opposing an effort by a Kimberlin adversary to obtain her
identifying information so that the adversary could sue her for defamation along
with Kimberlin himself. Happily, I was able to talk the plaintiffs lawyer out of
pursuing such discovery; in fact, he had an attack of good judgment and dismissed
the case altogether.
The last sentence of this statement by Mr. Levy is pure fiction. The "plaintiffs
lawyer" in that case was Dan Backer, who works for Defendant DBCapitol
Strategies, and Mr. Backer emphatically refused to stop discovery and did not
dismiss the case at all but tried to use it to extort Plaintiffs employer into firing him,
and it was Judge Motz who dismissed the case in a very unfavorable decision.
Clearly, these public statements are adverse to Plaintiff, are meant to harm him, and
are false, misleading. deceptive and unfair in violation of the above disciplinary rule.
7
DR2-103 -Recommendation of Professional Employment.
(C) -Alawyer shall not request a person or organization to recommend or promote
the use of his services or those of his partner or associate, or any other lawyer
affiliated with him or his firm, as a private practitioner.
DR 5.107 -Avoiding Influence by Others Than the Client.
(A) -Except with the consent of his client after full disclosure, a lawyer shall not:
(1) -Accept compensation for his legal services from one other than his client
(2) -Accept from one other than his client any thing of value related to his
representation of or his employment by his client
Mr. Levy, within minutes of filing his pleading electronically with this Court,
posted his defamatory blog post. And shortly thereafter, Defendant Ace promoted
the use of Mr. Levy's services by posting a laudatory post about Mr. Levyand linking
to Mr. Levy's post, and asking his readers to donate big time to Mr. Levy.
Mr. Levy has written a blog post about the matter ~ If you like reading motions,
you can read his response in opposition to Kimberlin's motion ~ It was just
submitted yesterday. Mr. Levyis taking this case pro bono -- donating his time and
expertise. However, Public Citizen does, of course, take donations, and ifthe mood
strikes you to support someone, on principle, who is himself taking on a fight not his
own, on principle, you can donate to Public Citizen's efforts to protect online speech,
to protect the First Amendment. here ....
(fyou were thinking of hitting the donation button for me recently, hit it instead for
Mr. Levy. He's already spent a Jot of time on this case, and will undoubtedly spend a
lot more. http://ace.mu.nu/archjves/347274.php
Clearly, it appears that there was coordination between Mr. Levyand Defendant
Ace to use his multitude of readers to promote the use of Mr. Levy's services and to
compensate Mr. Levy by people "other than his client" even though Mr. Levy
professed to take the case "pro bono."
DR4-101-Preservation of Confidences and Secrets ofa Client.
(A) -"Confidence" refers to information protected by the attorney-client privilege
under applicable law, and "secret" refers to other information gained in the
professional relationship that the client has requested be held inviolate or the
8
disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to
the client
(8) -Except when permitted under DR 4-101(C), a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) -Reveal a confidence or secret of his client
(2) -Use a confidence or secret of his client to the disadvantage of the client
(3) -Use a confidence or secret of his client for the advantage of himself or of a third
person, unless the client consents after full disclosure.
Again, Plaintiff did not waive any attorney client relationship but rather invoked
it fully both in communications to Mr. Levy and to Defendant Ace. Mr. Levy,
however, totally ignored Plaintiffs invocation by representing Defendant Ace, and
then attacking Plaintiff in both his motion and in his blog post with outright
falsehoods and ad hominem character assassination. These falsehoods and attacks
carried much greater weight to the average reader because Mr. Levy previously
represented Plaintiff. Therefore, they would believe that they were true and that
Plaintiff shared confidences with Mr. Levy that he is now divulging in court filings
and in his blog post Clearly, this violation of the attorney client relationship is
embarrassing to Plaintiff and likely to disadvantage and be detrimental to him.
DR 7-106 (G) -Extrajudicial Publicity
A lawyer or law firm associated with a civil action shall not during its investigation
or litigation make or participate in making an extrajudicial statement, other than a
quotation from or reference to public records, that a reasonable person would
expect to be disseminated by means of public communication and that relates to:
(1) -Evidence regarding the occurrence or transaction involved.
(2) -The character, credibility, or criminal record of a party, witness, or prospective
witness.
(3) -The performance or results of any examinations or tests or the refusal or failure
of a party to submit to such.
(4) -His opinion as to the merits of the claims or defenses of a party, except as
required by law or administrative rule.
(5) -Any other matter reasonably likely to interfere with a fair trial of the action.
As noted above, Mr. Levy, within minutes of filing his pleading in this case,
violated the above disciplinary rule by making extrajudicial statements attacking
9
Plaintiff in his blog post, making outright false and unfair statements, coordinating
with his client Defendant Ace to link to his blog post to give it massive readership
and raise money for Mr. Levy, and adversely affect Plaintiff in the eyes of the public,
the legal community, and to any potential jury pool.
Clearly, Mr. Levy's actions demonstrate that he has "differing interests," which is
defined by the Rules as "every interest that will adversely affect either the judgment
or the loyalty of a lawyer to a client, whether it be a conflicting. inconsistent, diverse,
or other interest."
Mr. Levy's Conduct Violates The Code Of Professional Responsibility And The
Maryland Lawyer's Rules Of Professional Conduct On Conflicts Oflnterest
The Code of Professional Responsibility as mirrored by the Maryland Lawyer's
Rules of Professional Conduct specifically prohibits the kinds of conflicts of interest
exhibited by Mr. Levy.
RULE 1.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: GENERAL RULE
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the
representation involves a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists if:
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be
materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client
or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
As stated above, Mr. Levy is representing Defendant Ace in a way that is directly
adverse to the interests of Plaintiff.
RULE 1.8 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: CURRENT CLIENTS: SPECIFIC RULES
(b) A lawyer shall not use information relating to representation of a client to the
disadvantage of the client unless the client gives informed consent ....
(c) A lawyer shall not solicit any substantial gift from a client, including a
testamentary gift ....
10
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l04 Filed 03/ll/l4 Page l0 of l9
Mr. Levy is using information relating to the representation of Plaintiff to
disadvantage him without his informed consent In fact, Mr. Levy is doing so in spite
of Plaintiffs statement that he is laboring under a conflict of interest.
Moreover, as detailed above, Mr. Levy has coordinated with Defendant Ace for
both a substantial financial and testamentary gift in the form of a laudatory blog
post and a request for donations.
RULE 1.9 DUTIES TO FORMER CLIENTS
(a) Alawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter
represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that
person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless
the former client gives informed consent ....
Mr. Levy has represented Plaintiffs co-defendant BU,in a related case involving
some of the same parties in the instant case in which that co-defendant's interests
are materially adverse to the interests of Defendant Ace, and that former client has
not given informed consent to allow that conflict or waived that conflict
Therefore, this Court should disqualify him from representing Defendant Ace in this
matter.
THE MOTION TO OPPOSE DISCOVERY SHOULD BE DENIED ON ITS MERITS
1. If this Court determines that Mr. Levy had no conflict in representing
both Ace and Plaintiff, the Motion in Opposition to Discovery should be denied on
the merits for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff has a statutory right to serve
Defendants in this case, and anonymity and offshore hosting does not give a person
immunity from service. This would be unfair both to Plaintiff and to the other
Defendants who use their own names and who have not evaded service.
11
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l04 Filed 03/ll/l4 Page ll of l9
2. Second, the law in Maryland clearly states that a Plaintiff suing an
anonymous blogger has the right to identifY that blogger in order to effectuate
service. In this district, judge Hollander addressed a subpoena to identifY
anonymous speakers in a case involving defamatory speech. Applying the
requirements set forth in Independent Newspapers v. Brodie, 407 Md. 415 (2009),
she said: "although they are not binding on this Court .... on balance, plaintiffs
interests in pursuing the litigation outweighed the anonymity rights of the speakers
in light of the commercial nature ofthe speech." In re Drasin, 2013 WL 3866777, at
'5 (D.Md. july 24,2013).
3. Counsel for Ace argues, in essence, that the First Amendment protects
all speech, no matter how defamatory and inflammatory. Fortunately, this purist
interpretation has been soundly rejected by the Supreme Court which has
repeatedly held that the First Amendment does not protect defamation, Gertz v.
Robert Welch, Inc., 418 US 323 (1974). As the Court noted in Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383
U. S. 75,86 (1966), there are "important social values which underlie the law of
defamation," and "[sJociety has a pervasive and strong interest in preventing and
redressing attacks upon reputation."
4. Counsel's position would nullifY the well-established body oftort law
in Maryland because it would allow anyone who is anonymous to commit any tort
and then hide behind the First Amendment In january, the Virginia Court of
Appeals rejected this same argument in another case brought by counsel for Ace
when it held that anonymous people who made defamatory comments on Yelp
12
could be identified. See Yelp, Inc. v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, 62 Va. App. 678, 752
S.E.2d 554 (Va. App. 2014),
5. Ace argues that the First Amendment gives reporters a type of blanket
immunity from tort suits where defamation is not proven. This, however, has been
rejected by the Supreme Court in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co, 501 US 663 (1991),
which held that the press "has no special immunity from the application of general
laws" and that the enforcement of general laws against the press "is not subject to
stricter scrutiny than would be applied to enforcement against other persons or
organizations." Id. at 670. Plaintiff has sued Ace under Rico, Civil Rights Conspiracy,
False Light, and Infliction of Emotional Distress. In the Second Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff adds even more counts and many more facts to support these claims.
6. Ace argues that although Plaintiff has met some of the Brodie
standards, he has not proven a prima facie case of defamation because the
defamation took place more than one year ago, which puts it beyond the state of
limitations, and the statements of Ace are not defamatory. This misunderstands this
case. First, as noted, defamation is but one count alleged, and another count is false
light, which has a three-year statute of limitations. Allen v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 314
Md. 458 (1988): In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff does not even charge
Ace under the defamation count, except under conspiracy, and the statute of
limitations runs from the last overt act of the conspiracy, which is less than one year.
7. Moreover, the statements are defamatory per se because they allege
that Plaintiff committed the horrible crime of swatting which could be prosecuted
under both state and federal law. Cf. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 US 1 (1990)
13
(not opinion for publication to allege or impute that plaintiff committed crime,
therefore, defamation suit could proceed).
8. And because the Defendants defamed Plaintiff with malice, every
standard of defamation would apply even though another judge in Montgomery
County Circuit Court already ruled that Plaintiff is not a public figure in a defamation
case Plaintiff won, Kimberlin v. Allen,
Docket Date:
Docket
Description:
Docket Type:
Ruling Judge:
Reference
Docket(s):
Docket Text:
9.
02/09/2012 Docket Number: 140
ORDER, FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF
Ruling Filed By: Court Status: Denied
QUIRK, JOSEPH M
Motion: 119
ORDER OF COURT (QUIRK, J.) THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DECLARE BRETT
KIMBERLIN AS A PUBLIC FIGURE RATHER THAT PRIVATE CITIZEN (D.E. #119) IS
DENIED, ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)
Ace argues that Plaintiff has not alleged defamation other than to state
that Ace engaged in implication defamation by stating that Plaintiff was involved
with swattings. In fact, Ace wrote a series of articles that generated hundreds of
comments from his readers. He published "National Day of Blogger Silence" on his
blog to focus attention on the false narrative that Plaintiff was responsible for
swattings. In the article, Defendant Ace of Spades imputed that Plaintiffwas
involved with the "crime" of swatting: "They are literally going to Bet someone
killed. That is their endgame here." "...Brett Kimberlin and his stalker crew ...." This
was viewed in Maryland. http://ace.mu.nu/archiyes/329849.php He published four
other defamatory articles.
14
In the first, article, http://mjnx.ccl?post=329569herepublished a post

from Patte rico which accuses Plaintiff of swatting and then he says:
"It's as long as an Ace of Spades movie review, but it is a shocking
exposition of just how nefarious Kimberlin and his henchmen are alleged to
be,"
In the second article, http://ace,my,nu /archjves/329494.php he targeted
Plaintiffs employer, saying that the non profit gets donations to subsidize
Plaintiffs "harassment and abuse ...." And then he falsely accuses Plaintiff of
harassment, and then he calls him a "thug." And then: "You can be a thug if
you like. But you can do it onyourowngoddamned dime. One last thing we
can do: We can urge/request/demand our representatives read Brett
Kimberlin's criminal history into the United States Congressional
Record. Why? Not for punitive reasons. Rather, to answer the question I
posed in the headline. Did the USCongress strip American citizens of their
right to state demonstrably true facts without unending harassments? Did
we lose that right simply because Brett Kimberlin has decided, as a
Congress of One, that we should no longer have it?"
In the third article, http://ace.mu.nu/archives/329977.php, he engages in
widespread defamation.
"Two people have already been silenced. One man has been arrested--
arrested, for blogging about the criminal history of Brett Kimberlin, and for
describing his ongoing ordeal at Kimberlin's hands. Unless Congress acts --
and acts swiftly -- there will be still further innocent citizens subjected to
Brett Kimberlin's lawless vigilantism."
He then republishes an article accusing Plaintiff of running a new criminal
"scam."
Then he imputes that Plaintiff was involved with swattings, and in
terrorism. "While I, and Kimberlin's other targets, are heartened by
Congress' letter to Eric Holder to look into the SWATting matter, what a
reading of Citizen Kdemonstrates is that Congress itself needs to act in
order to finally put an end to Brett Kimberlin's ongoing digital (and real-
life) terrorism."
"Prison did not stop his crimes. Prison only taught him new skills."
"And the avalanche of frivolous, vexatious, and outright malicious lawsuits
begins anew, as well as more alarming harassments."
"I am writing to you, Members of Congress, to alert you of the full menace
that Brett Kimberlin still poses to society. He should never have been let
out of prison; having lived nearly the entirety of his life since high school as
one-man crime wave, it can hardly have been believed that he had truly
reformed by 2000."
"It is a burden to live with a criminal conviction for a terrifYing domestic-
terrorism bombing spree, as Brett Kimberlin well knows. However, Brett
Kimberlin has decided that burden shall no longer fall upon his shoulders,
15
but upon the shoulders of anyone who mentions his extensive, remorseless,
relentless criminal history. Brett Kimberlin has personally decided that it is
society at large, rather than himself, who shall bear the burden of his
crimes."
"Will Congress consider enacting positive legislation to limit Brett
Kimberlin's relentless determination to sue over any negative mention of
his past?"
"At some point, the ongoing case of Brett Kimberlin v. The World At Large
must finally, finally end."
"Acrime is in progress. It is ongoing. Will Congress please act to stop it?"
"If you are reading this, please contact Congress to ask them to not only
take an interest in this matter, but to seriously consider enacting positive
statutory law to limit Brett Kimberlin's ongoing abuse of the legal system
and corruption of justice."
"Congress also doesn't appreciate the urgency of the situation. If there's
one theme of Brett Kimberlin's life, it's escalating risk-taking when already
in a risky situation."
"The Speedway Bombings, of which he was convicted, were conducted even
as he was under investigation for the murder-by-hire of an innocent
grandmother. The theory was that Brett Kimberlin set the bombs to cause
chaos and prevent a proper investigation of the execution-style murder of
Julia Scyphers."
"Escalation. .... Escalation. And this leads to the last point that I don't know if
Congress is aware of: Brett Kimberlin is a dangerous man. That is not my
opinion; that is the finding of the United States federal courts. This is not
some blogwar bullshit This is not a case of he called me a dirty name on the
internet and I'm angry. This is digital terrorism, straight up. With
consequences that go far beyond what someone said about you on Twitter.
Some people are heartened that this malicious ongoing to threat to society
is finally getting some media coverage, and some United States government
officials are now paying close attention. I'm not Because I know what
happened last time Brett Kimberlin began getting some serious scrutiny:
Bombs began going off. Escalation."
And in the fourth article, http://ace.mu.nu/archives/330355.phD. he falsely
states that Plaintiff has been engaged in "his endless campaign of
harassment, intimidation, and lawfare." He then quotes verbatim from
Defendant Dan Backer and DBCapitol Strategies' defamatory post accusing
Plaintiff of swatting.
10. In Barhoum v. NYP, decided March 5, 2014 (Mass Sup Ct 13-2062), the
Court found that a single article in the New York Post that imputed that two men
were the Boston Marathon Bombers, when the were not, constituted defamation by
16
implication. The NYPost argued, as does Ace here, that the article was merely
opinion or discussion of a matter of public concern, yet the Court rejected these
arguments. Copy attached as Exhibit E.
11. As in Barhoum, Ace stated falsely that Plaintiff was committing crimes
and one of the crimes was swatting. All of Ace's articles about Plaintiff must be
considered as a continuing dialog with his readers rather than considering one
article or one line in an article. He falsely accused Plaintiff of crimes and then called
on Congress and the FBI to investigate and jail Plaintiff, and for Congress to pass a
Bill of Attainder against Plaintiff because he is a "digital terrorist," "one man crime
wave," "menace to society," "dangerous man," and a murderer who will "escalate"
and bomb people if Congress does not act. He called on bloggers across the country
to stop blogging in order to draw attention to PlaintifFs (non-existent) crimes. Of
course, all these statements are false and malicious and placed Plaintiff in a false
light Plaintiff had noting to do with any swattings, and all the false statements and
incitement by Ace were done to harm Plaintiff and his reputation.
12. Ace wants this Court to believe that Ace is an anonymous person. In
fact, however, he is well known in the conservative community and has spoken to
thousands of people and had his picture taken at the Conservative Political Action
Committee Conference where he actually won an award. Ace has appeared as a
commentator on Fox News regarding the war in the Middle East, and that video is
still available on YouTube with more than 5,000 views.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCU9Hs5sEyO He is so well known that the
Village Voice created a cartoon drawing of his face for an article.
17
http: j j www.villagevo ice.comj sl ides how j a-hea dshot -gu ide- to- the- right-wi ng-
blogosphere-92000j# See these three pictures of Ace from Google searches at
Exhibit F. If Ace wanted to be truly anonymous, he would not be making public and
television appearances before millions of people. What counsel is saying in essence
that Ace has a right to pick and choose to whom he remains anonymous. And it
appears that Ace has chosen to Jet conservatives and conservative audiences know
who he is while attempting to keep others such as Plaintiff in the dark. But clearly
these public appearances constitute to a waiver of his anonymity.
13. Plaintiff is simply asking to serve Ace with a copy of the Complaint
and now Second Amended Complaint. He has asked for the subpoena in order to
learn Ace's name and address for service purposes only. Plaintiff will not contact
Ace for any other purpose other than regarding this case. And if Ace has an attorney
after service, Plaintiff will never contact Ace.
14. Clearly, as Judge Hollander found in Drozin, supra, "on balance,
plaintiffs interests in pursuing the litigation outweighed the anonymity rights of the
speakers ...."
Wherefore, for all the above reasons, This Court should reject Ace's Motion in
Opposition to Plaintiffs request for a subpoena to lntermarkets to provide Ace's
name and address.
Respectful
Brett Kimb li
8100 Beech Tree Rd
Bethesda, MD 20817
(301) 320 5921
iusti ce j tm p@comcastlJet
18
Certificate of Service
I certify that I have served a copy of this Response on Lee Stranahan, Ron
Coleman, Catilyn Contestable, Michael Smith, and Mark Bailen by email, and on
Defendants Hoge, The Franklin Center, McCainand Walker by First Class mail
this 11th day of March, 2014.
Brett Kimberlin
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GREENBELT DIVISION
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL BLOGGERSCLUB, et al
Defendants.
No. PWG 13 3059
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF BRETT KIMBERLIN RE ATTORNEY PARUL LEVY
I, Brett Kimberlin, pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC1746, that the following is
true and correct under penalty of perjury.
1. Paul Levy has represented me in the past and I have consulted with him on
various legal matters over the past several years that I considered to be
under the attorney client umbrella.
2. Mr. Levy also represented an anonymous co-defendant of mine in a case
brought by Aaron Walker in this Court before Judge Motz. Mr. Levy
contacted Mr. Walker's attorney, Dan Backer, who is the senior partner at the
law firm DBCapitol Strategies. Both Aaron Walker and DBCapitol Strategies
are defendants in the instant case. Judge Motz dismissed that case out of
hand.
3. Mr. Levy contacted me prior to filing his pleading in the instant case on
behalf of Defendant Ace of Spades and asked me to drop my attempts to
serve that defendant. I told Mr. Levy and I wrote an email to the defendant
stating that Mr. Levy would be laboring under a conflict of interest if he
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l04-l Filed 03/ll/l4 Page l of 2
represented Defendant Ace of Spades. Those communications were very
clear that I did not waive my attorney client relationship.
4. Mr. Levy filed a pleading in this case and published a blog post which are
adverse to me. They attack me, defame me and amount to character
assassination by my former attorney, Mr. Levy. Because they come from Mr.
Levy, they carry more weight than would similar attacks by persons who did
not have an attorney client relationship with me.
S. I was informed by a reporter that Mr. Levy had sent an email to my former
co-defendant in the Judge Motz case shortly after Mr. Levy published his blog
post and filed his pleading in this case. In that email, which I saw a copy of in
an article, Mr. Levy tells the former client that [ have gone too far and to back
off of this case. The email then referenced the blog post Mr. Levy published
attacking me.
6. I was shocked that Mr. Levy would contact a former client to tell them that I
had gone too far and to back off from a civil action to redress tortious wrongs
against me. [also took this as an ominous threat by Mr. Levyto take some
unethical action against me if [ did not back off.
7. I find it unethical and abhorrent for Mr. Levyto publish a blog post and a
pleading attacking me personally, both stating falsehoods to adversely affect
the instant case and me.
8. Mr. Levy's conduct has embarrassed me, been detrimental to me, and has the
very real possibility of disadvantaging me in the instant case.
Dated his 24
th
day of February 2014.
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l04-l Filed 03/ll/l4 Page 2 of 2
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Brett Kimberlin's Attack on Free Speech
by Paul Alan Levy
Somewhat more than 25 years ago, I represented a federal prisoner
named Brett Kimberlin who made a sensational accusation against a
sitting Senator who was running for Vice-President - Kimberlin claimed
that, during his extensive career as a drug dealer, one of his customers
had been a then-Iaw-student who was the scion of a major newspaper
publisher, Dan Quayle. Apparently hoping to block Kimberlin's access
to the major media, prison authorities put him in solitary confinement.
Kimberlin was in prison for some horrifying crimes- the planting of
several bombs in Speedway, Indiana - and we had no idea whether
Kimberlin was telling the truth about Quayle. But the Justice
Department was not punishing him on the theory that his speech was
deliberately false and defamatory (in which case it would have been
unprotected by the First Amendment; but how would the Justice
Department have known whether Quayle was or was not a drug
customer anyway?), and even thugs have the right to criticize public
officials. So we pursued documents about his confinement under the
Freedom of lnfoffilation Act, hoping to set up a Bivens action against the
responsible federal officials. (The action under Bivens and other
authorities was brought by pro bono attorneys from Arnold & Porter
and was ultimately settled after several denials of summary judgment
and trips to the DC Circuit and even the Supreme Court).
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l04-2 Filed 03/ll/l4 Page l of 4
Lawsuits by and Against Kimberlin over Free Speech Activities
After his release from prison, Kimberlin reinvented himself as an
activist on such issues as addressing flaws in electronic voting as well as
encouraging young people to register to vote, but the liberal direction of
his politics made him the logical target of attacks from the right-wing
end of the blogosphere, which recalled his criminal career and argued
that it colored everything he had done since. Some of his non-profit
activities are creditable indeed, but it seems to me that Kimberlin has
been undone by overconfidence in the skills that he developed as a
jailhouse lawyer: Kimberlin has responded to the online criticism with
a campaign of pro se litigation, suing both individuals and groups of
critics; some of his critics have sued Kimberlin and others who support
Kimberlin. There has been plenty of excess on both sides, as far as I
am concerned.
Various sides have sought my assistance in connection with various
aspects of this series of lawsuits. I had a chat with Kimberlin some time
ago in which I suggested that his campaign to suppress criticism though
litigation had rather gone overboard. At the time, he told me that his
critics were not just criticizing him, but were physically stalking him
and criticizing his wife as well, and that he was not prepared to desist
from litigation so long as that was happening. On the other hand, at
one point I agreed to represent an anonymous blogger in opposing an
effort by a Kimberlin adversary to obtain her identifying infornlation so
that the adversary could sue her for defamation along with Kimberlin
himself. Happily, I was able to talk the plaintiff's lawyer out of
pursuing such discovery.
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l04-2 Filed 03/ll/l4 Page 2 of 4
Kimberlin's Current Lawsuit
Most recently, Kimberlin has brought a RICO action that has nothing to
do with physical stalking or criticism of his wife. Kimberlill v NatiollaL
Bloggers Club, et al., brought this past fall in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, names more than twenty of
Kimberlin's critics, charging them with a conspiracy to defame him as
being responsible for tlle"SWATting" of certain online critics
(SWATting refers to the triggering of a visit by a police SWAT unit to
tlle victim's home ilirough the placement of a false call for help in
connection a fictional violent crime). The complaint, which runs on for
50 pages and more than 200 paragraphs, also includes a somewhat
bizarre claim that his critics have improperly encouraged donations to
something called the "National Bloggers Club" by falsely claiming that
it enjoys tax exempt status, entitling its donors to deduct contributions
to that entity. A number of the allegations about the wrongful speech of
the defendants are extremely vague, quoting selected words but
asserting that they "impute" other wrongful conduct.
Among the defendants in tlle action is an anonymous blogger whom
Kimberlin sued for allegedly "imputing" that Kimberlin was involved
in SWATting. (Complaint paragraph 66, citing this blog post). Because
the blog post said nothing of the kind, I agreed to represent defendant
"Ace of Spades" in opposing Kimberlin's request for judicial
permission to pursue discovery to identify Ace of Spades.
As I usually do in these situations, I began by trying to persuade
Kimberlin to drop his discovery request because the blog post in
question is not defamatory. Kimberlin responded by detailing a
number of different statements that Ace of Spades had made which,
Kimberlin threatened, would be made the subject of an amended
complaint. And when Kimberlin learned that I had not been dissuaded,
he sent Ace of Spades an email threatening that, unless Ace
immediately accepted Kimberlin's unspecified terms, Kimberlin would
unmask her and she might suffer the same fate as other bloggers whom
Kimberlin had managed to identify (Kimberlin mentioned one blogger
who had lost his job and suffered two years of unemployment).
Opposition to Discovery Under Dendrite
Yesterday, therefore, we joined with the ACLU of Maryland
in opposing Kimberlin's motion for leave to take discovery, arguing that
the federal courts in Maryland should join the Maryland Court of
Appeals in adopting the Dendrite balancing test. Although Kimberlin
has yet to identify any defamatory statements, not to speak of
producing evidence of falsity, the case also presents a real possibility of
employing the final, "balancing" stage of Dendrite, which the Maryland
Court of Appeals endorsed in Tndependent Newspapers v. Brodie, because
Ace has real reason to fear retaliation if she is identified. This could
involve either the economic consequences that Kimberlin threatened
explicitly, or even physical consequences in light of the SWATting
phenomenon visited by unknown persons on several bloggers involved
in controversies with Kimberlin, not to speak of Kimberlin's own
violent past.
Why Paul Alan Levy Is
Embarrassing Himself For
Of Spades
ritten by: Xenophon on February 21,2014.
Ace
Ace of Spades being, urn, "anonymous" on television
Attorney Paul Alan Levy has been described as a "pioneer" in protecting
internet anonymity, so it is not really surprising that Ace of Spades would
want his representation against Brett Kimberlin's RICO lawsuit. However,
Mr. Levy will need to get his facts straight before he submits his motions,
and he will need to untangle major conflicts of interest before showing up
to court. When he announced that he was taking the case late Tuesday
night, Levy made some glaring factual errors:
Various sides have sought my assistance in connection with various
aspects of this series of lawsuits. I had a chat with Kimberlin some
time ago in which I suggested that his campaign to suppress
criticism though litigation had rather gone overboard. At the time,
he told me that his critics were not just criticizing him, but were
physically stalking him and criticizing his wife as well, and that he
was not prepared to desistfrom litigation so long as that was
happening. On the other hand, at one point I agreed to represent an
anonymous blogger in opposing an effort by a Kimberlin adversary
to obtain her identifying information so that the adversary could sue
herfor defamation along with Kimberlin himself. Happily, I was
able to talk the plaintiff's lawyer out of pursuing such discovery; in
fact, he had an attack of goodjudgment and dismissed the case
altogether.
In fact, Mr. Levy agreed to represent this website in Aaron Walker's failed
2012 lawsuit against Kimberlin. Walker had attempted to drag us into that
litigation by claiming we had libeled him by calling him a "useless attorney"
at the behest of Mr. Kimberlin. In order to defend us, Mr. Levy required a
one-month defamation review for our 1,200-word blog post and demanded
extensive, meticulous documentation. As we will demonstrate, he clearly
has not applied this same rigorous approach in taking on Ace of Spades as
a client. Furthermore, Mr. Levy's assertion that he talked Dan Backer out of
pursuing discovery in that case is a self-serving falsehood. Walker and
Backer had their case dismissed with prejudice by Judge Motz, who did not
cite Mr. Levy anywhere in his blistering decision. Mr. Backer, who had
called Walker v Kimberlin, et al "the case of a lifetime," did not suffer an
attack of good judgment. That is not what happened, and Mr. Levy knows it
perfectly well.
As a lawyer for Public Citizen, Levy was also involved in litigation over
Kimberlin's case more than a quarter-century ago. Obviously, he has
conflicts of interest here, and he exacerbated them immediately after
posting his announcement by contacting the former proprietor of this
website in what appears to be an effort to influence Mr. Kimberlin's
litigation. Remember, this is a communication to someone Mr. Levy has
previously defended, and who had no other role in any of these lawsuits
besides reporting on them.
From: Paul Alan Levy[mailto
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 201411:58 PM
To:'BU'
Subject: I am afraid your buddy Brett has gone too far
http://pubcittypepad.com/clpoloq/2014/02/brett-l<imberlins-attacl<-on-free-speech.htm I
Mayoe his friends can tall<him out of this
The heart of Mr. Levy's argument is that Kimberlin's lawsuit is an 'assault
on free speech.' He asserts that Ace of Spades "has real reason to fear
retaliation if she is identified." (Levy always refers to anonymous
defendants in the feminine.) We find this claim hilarious, as Ace has never
been afraid to be seen in public and his pictures are available on Google.
Ace has spoken at the Conservative Political Action Conference, and
photographs from that event appear in his fans' blogs - for example, we
found one in this post about "the ten hottest new media guys on the right."
Is this person exposing Ace to retaliation? They have certainly opened him
up for identification.
Ace's face is well-known enough that in 2008, the Village Voice was able
to commission a cartoon version for satirical purposes. Rather than worry
about retaliation at the time, his fans found it flattering.
Ace has also appeared on Fox News, where his face and voice were not
obscured or altered in any way. So it is actually not true that Ace "fears
retaliation." He is already a public person who, as far as we can tell, has
spent more time on television in recent years than Brett Kimberlin has.
What Ace genuinely fears is that he might lose the mystique of being the
"anonymous" king of right wing bloggers. As things stand, he gets to have
his anonymity cake and eat it too, appearing in public and accepting the
adulation of his adoring fans without using his real name. But Mr. Levy is
being disingenuous by even raising this issue, because our sources tell us
that Mr. Kimberlin recently offered Ace the chance to reach a settlement
without giving up his identity. Kimberlin's objectives are to be made whole
and have defamatory content removed from the internet, and outing Ace is
not necessary to those ends.
Speaking of defamatory content: Mr. Levy asserts that Ace has not
defamed Mr. Kimberlin, but we are quite sure that he did not do a
defamation review as thorough as the one he did while defending BU.
Consider this post in which Ace asks Congress to pass an unconstitutional
bill of attainder, declare Mr. Kimberlin guilty of an ongoing terror campaign,
and forbid him from ever suing anyone ever again. It is the shortest of the
three worst posts at Ace's blog.
Releasedfrompnson in 2000, Brett Kimberlin has now turned his
jailhouse lawyer skills on a new pool of victims: Bloggers who dare
to publicly mention, on their small-scale electronic newspapers,
Brett Kimberlin's criminal record. And the avalanche offrivolous,
vexatious, and outright malicious lawsuits begins anew, as well as
more alarming harassments.
That was in June of 2012, more than a year before Mr. Kimberlin filed his
first lawsuit against any of these people. Mr. Levy, who urged Mr. Kimberlin
not to file any lawsuits against Ace or his fellow smear-merchants last
year, is perfectly aware of the truth - but in his announcement, he seems
to endorse the lie. He even echoes Ace by denigrating Kimberlin as a
"jailhouse lawyer."
After his releasefrom prison, Kimberlin reinvented himself as an
activist on such issues as addressing flaws in electronic voting as
well as encouraging young people to register to vote, but the liberal
direction of his politics made him the logical target of attacks from
the right-wing end of the blogosphere, which recalled his criminal
career and argued that it colored everything he had done since.
Some of his non-profit activities are creditable indeed, but it seems
to me that Kimberlin has been undone by overconfidence in the skills
that he developed as ajailhouse lawyer: Kimberlin has responded to
the online criticism with a campaign of pro se litigation, suing both
individuals and groups of critics; some of his critics have sued
Kimberlin and others who support Kimberlin. There has been
plenty of excess on both sides, asfar as I am concerned.
This is flabbergasting stuff, because Mr. Levy is perfectly familiar with just
how crazy the witch hunt has been. There have been no "logical targets,"
only convenient ones. In this post, Ace called Kimberlin "nefarious" and
referred to his "henchmen," a theme that encouraged further defamation
and actual litigation. Walker's 2012 lawsuit accused two men, Ron
Brynaert and Neal Rauhauser, of being Mr. Kimberlin's 'henchmen.' But
Mr. Kimberlin has never met Mr. Brynaert, and he has neither paid nor
directed Mr. Rauhauser to do anything to anyone. Later, defendant Robert
Stacy McCain madeextraordinary efforts to connect a woman named
Melissa Brewer with Mr. Kimberlin; she has never met or spoken to the
gentleman, and contrary to McCain's assertions she has never written for
this website. For reasons that still make no sense to us, defendants also
fell all over themselves trying to "prove" that one of our regular
commenters is Alabama blogger Roger Shuler. The harassment campaign
against these supposed "henchmen" has led William Hoge to file hundreds
of criminal charges against Bill Schmalfeldt, a former writer for this site, for
the "crime" of tweeting at him. Hoge, Walker, and friends have filed dozens
of peace orders against Schmalfeldt and Kimberlin.
Then there are the creepy parts of this story: people calling Mr. Kimberlin's
neighbors, taking pictures of his daughters, calling and threatening his 80
year-old mother, sending him pictures of guns, signing him up for
subscriptions to right wing magazines that flood his mailbox, causing his
children to be bullied at school, and reporting him to the FBI so that they
show up unannounced at his home and ask his family ridiculous
questions. What corresponding "excesses" have been incurred by "the
Kimberlin side"? Mr. Levy does not say, and cannot say - because there
are none. We invite him to try.
Ace accused Kimberlin of harassment and abuse without any evidence. In
his open letter to Congress, Ace accused Kimberlin of an unsolved murder
and of operating a criminal scam, called him a menace to society and a
"digital terrorist," and worried that he was building bombs in his basement.
There was never anything "logical" about any of this, especially the
hyperbolic accusations of SWATing. If that is not defamation, we invite Mr.
Levy to explain what he considers to be defamation. Given our own
experience with his workflow in defamation cases, just this one open letter
to Congress ought to require months of review, and it is not the only
defamatory post Ace wrote about Mr. Kimberlin. Yet as near as we can tell
from our sources, Mr. Levy spent days, not weeks, studying the case
before he took it.
Ace seems to be very pleased with his choice of representation, but we
think Mr. Levy is in real danger of being embarrassed by the "jailhouse
lawyer" because he wants the court to apply a different standard of
defamation. We doubt the court will agree.
Public Citizenfiled a briefin opposition to that motion, arguing that
the Marylandfederal court should apply the same test for the
identification of anonymous Internet speakers as Maryland courts,
which follow the Dendrite test, and that Kimberlin has not met that
test.
That is false: Maryland courts use the Brodie test of defamation. In fact,
Maryland courts created the Brodie test. Furthermore, Mr.
Kimberlin passed that test months ago in his state case against Walker
and friends. Levy is asking a federal court to apply a higher standard of
proof to anonymous persons than the one used for journalists and
publications. It is true that anonymous speech shares the same protections
as non-anonymous speech, but not true that anonymous speech enjoys
greater protection. This is a losing argument, and surely Mr. Levy knows
that it will lose. But does he even really care?
Mr. Levy has already suffered a string of embarrassments lately. For
example, he recently lost a big decision in the Hadeed Carpets v
Yelp case, where a business seeks to determine whether its competitors
have defamed the company by posing as customers. So why would he
take on Ace's defense and offer up such a loser of an argument? The
obvious answer is money. Levy's total defense of BU amounted to a few
letters to Dan Backer. He never appeared in court or submitted a single
motion. But he indicated to the previous proprietor of this site that
he would do so if he was paid lots of money.
Later, when Bill Schmalfeldt faced bogus criminal charges and systematic
defamation, the Maryland ACLU declined to help. Mr. Levy was not
interested in defending our disabled journalist friend pro bono, either.
Altogether, we have been unimpressed by either the organization or the
attorney. But Ace has money at his back, and that changes everything.
Even if Levy gets embarrassed in the courtroom, he still stands to profit
just by charging at hourly rates.
We suspect that Public Citizen and the Maryland ACLU are motivated by
money as well. It is rare for either organization to insert themselves in
someone else's civil case, but Ace linked directly to their donation button
and asked readers to contribute to the organization. Because his blog has
some of the highest traffic in the right wing universe, they may perhaps
expect a dissonant windfall.
This is a strange triangulation, a bit like Stormfront holding a fundraiser for
the Southern Poverty Law Center. Ace saw it as an opening to claim the
mantle of bipartisan free speech interest, but this sordid saga has never
been about politics or free speech. It is about money.
The fraud charge at the heart of Mr. Kimberlin's lawsuit is not hard to
understand. Defendants spent more than a year raising money to "defend
themselves" from lawsuits he had never filed, trying to spur legislation
against him, suing him, and holding a social media lynch mob to call for his
head, spurring genuine acts of physical stalking and harassment. Mr.
Kimberlin's RICO lawsuit against them has nothing to do with "logical
targets" or political points of view. It is about them getting rich off the
defamation of Mr. Kimberlin, whom they consider "libel-proof." Apparently,
the money has convinced Mr. Levy and the underpaid, underfunded,
underperforming lawyers at the Maryland ACLU that the defamers are
right. Who knew the champions of free speech were so easily bought?
- See more at: http://www.breitbartunmasked.comllatest-news/why-paul-
alan-Ievy-is-embarrassi ng-himself-for -ace-of-
spades/#sthash. OfjC EDFL.dpuf
2115/2014
February 19, 2014
Ace or Spades HQ
Paul Alan Levy, First Amendment Lawyer Specializing in Protecting
Online Speech, Opposes Brett Kimberlin's Attempt to Convince a
Court to Compel Production of My Personal Information
Paul Alan Levy is one of the nation's top First Amendment lawyers and the nation's top expert, period, in a particular
specialized field-- in the defense of John Does, anonymous writers, from subpoenas seeking to "out" them as part of a
lawsuit. And defending online speech as a general matter -- see this case, for example, which is pretty egregious.
He is the eountty's most authoritative jurist on this subject, and his track record consists almost entirely of wins.
He has kindly agreed to represent me in fighting Brett Kimberlin's motion to compel a third party to give him my name
and address, so he can then sue me in a suit which, in my opinion, is entirely baseless, and once again an attempt to
chill Free Speech rights.
Which is what this has been about since the beginning.
What makes me particularly happy that Mr. Levy is representing me is that he is, by his confession, a 'lefty." It has
bothered me from the outset of this entire affair that people who I thought might take an interest -- people in the left-
leaning media who ought to care about attempts to chill and punish Free Expression, left-leaning bloggers whose very
jobs put them in danger of having the same tactics used against them -- failed to do so.
Instead, what seerus to have happened is everyone just "picked tea rus ,"based on the typical tribal impulses. If anyone
on the left wrote about this -- not because they agreed, politically, with any of Brett Kimberlin's targets, but because they
supported the principle that people ought to be free to comment on news and newsworthy stories without the threat of a
lawsuit hanging over them. (One person did cover it, briefly, in an '1nteresting Thing Going on on the Internet" sort of
way, but without actually examining the issues raised.)
And as far as the media, I'm afraid, the idea seemed to be "a pox on both their houses." One guy is using the courts to
pound critics and stifle free speech; but on the other hand, these guys are conservatives, so, of course, they are
Unpeople, and They Were Probably Doing Something Bad Anyway.
I am very grateful that people like Mr. Levy exist, who do not simply pick tribes, but who undertake to support and
defend important principles, whether any particular support of this principle might help someone on the right, or
someone on the left, or someone not particularly political at all, like someone who anonymously criticizes a company's
performance on a message board, and whose identity is then sought by a company willing to use a little bit oflawfare to
shut down criticism.
I am heartened by this. I am not just heartened to have impeccable representation in this matter (and by this matter, I
mean only the subpoena to out me), but I am heartened to know that even in this state of utter polarization, in which
people routinely declare an allegiance to The Tribe Uber Alles, there are still people who will fight for principle, not
tribe, and for what's right, not what's politically agreeable to one's "side."
I should also note that the Maryland ACLU has agreed to serve as Mr. Levy's co-counsel in the matter. (Levywill be
applying to the court to appear pro hac vice, just for this matter, and he needs Maryland co-counsel to do so, I think.)
I did not expect the Maryland ACLU, either, to come to my aid, but come to my aid they have.
Mr. Levy has written a blog post about the matter here.
If you like reading motions, you can read his response in opposition to Kimberlin's motion here. It was just submitted
yesterday.
Mr. Levy is taking this case pro bono -- donating his time and expertise. However, Public Citizen does, of course, take
donations, and if the mood strikes you to support someone, on principle, who is hiruselftaking on a fight not his own,
on principle, you can donate to Public Citizen's efforts to protect online speech, to protect the First Amendment, here.
I should note that Public Citizen is one of Ralph Nader's organizations. The donation button I've linked is specifically
the donor button for the organization's First Amendment practice, not its other efforts.
http://ace.mu.nufarc hive s/347274. php 112
2/2512014
Ace or Spades HQ
If you were thinking of hitting the the donation button for me recently, hit it instead for Mr. Lery. He's already spent a
lot of time on this case, and will undoubtedIyspenda lot more.
One last point: I know that this is obviously a newsworthy subject, and that people naturally like commenting on
newsworthy subjects, particularly when the subject is one you personally know (sort of -- in a fake internet friend sort
of way).
I would however just caution you all, as usual, to exercise judgment and discretion in commenting. The problem isn't
the law, per se: The problem is, as ever, an extremely litigious person.
http://ace.mu.nu/arc hi" es/347274. php
SUFFOLK, N.
COMMONWEALm OFMASSACBUSEITS
SUPERIOR COURT
CIVILACI10N
No. 13-2062
v.
. .
lUT BOLDJNGs, JNc.
J
Ir othen4
INTRODUCI1ON
This action arise. 1i'omaNew YorlcPostartidcpubJishcdin tho web of tho 2013 Boston
Maratbon bombil1p. Plaiutffii cWm th8t the article dc&med them, infliCted CIDOtional di!tn=ls
on them, 8Dd violated their JlrivIcy. Now bcfilrc the Court is the deJimdlllll'motion to dismiss.
For !be l'CUons that win be i:xp!ejlJCd, the motion wiD be alIowtd in pet lIIId dauicd in pm: .
BACJ<GROVND
Por tho purpoacs at the pnl!eot motion, the Court aceep1s IS !rUe all weD-pleaded &ctuaI
allegations oftbe complaint, but di cIa COlIClllliou IIId ~ OIsecled therein.
IBy .his father and IUlXtfrlead E1 Hou.an Buhoum.
2yllllSiue Zaimi.
'd/b/a New York Post.
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l04-5 Filed 03/ll/l4 Page l of l9
Sec Sisson v. LIIowt!, 460 MIISS. 7G5. 707 (201 I); W~lch v. SutibItry YOUlhSoccer ASs~.Inc.,
453 Mass. 352, 354 (2009); Eya/v. Hd." BITJftd. CoIp.. 41I Mass. 426, 429 (l99I). Along with
tho complaint itscH; tho Court alsO considcn JDIteriaJs appl!l1dlJd to or lcfaCllU':ed.in it,
. .
Kobriclc OffsIuJn Fund, Ltd.. 442 Mus. 43, 45 (2004).'
CoDsiderrd in that !DIn_. the PlaintiBiI' Verified Complaint, flIed on JlDle 5. 2013,
provides the followiD8 facluaI backsround. On Monday, ApriIlS. 2013. It ~ 2:49
PJD.. two bombs eqJloded near the finish line of the Boston MlU1Ithon. The bl_lolled timle
people and iujuml more than 260 others, fourteen of whom lost limbs. Media outlets covered
tho incidau extensively. Early media 1'Cparts t'C'\'C8lcd that ~ believed that the
~ had II'IJlSportcd the bombs to the area in dufFel begs or hec:q"clcs. The plaintifl5,
sixtcea-}'llIIr-old Salabeddin Barhonm aDd twenty.four-year.old YlISSine ZIIimi, were in the area
of the fiDiah 1inc car1ierin'thc day to observe tbc ditenJ1lDCrB. HachClUried his OWD1'D1I1IiDg
8ClII', one in a backpaclt and one in a duff'eI big. The two left at 12:45 p.m.. and had no
COIlnection to the bombinp.
PoliowiDe. the bombings, law CDforeement offic.ials asked ll1e public to provide them with
photos lIIld videoN of the sceoe at the 1DIllIlhou. Uscn ofsociaJ media Inteinet sites bepn
discussion gl'01lpI<dedicated to findj"8 the bombers. Armobttod collec:tions ofpbotoSlllPbs besan
appearing on there sites, IODle of whidt showed cin:les 8rDUDdiInqa of)lfltticular individuals.
Dc1'=ldants have ot&rcd e:utaiD additional mlltari.ds, which the Court will address lIffra.
-2.
SA copy o(!be JlriDt article is attached to tho COIDplaiut. Defcudcrts have PI'OVidcd a
PIiut-out of tho Oil-lin. \IaIion a lIDRttachmf:llt to their 1IUlIDonzId\IIJI in S\Ippozt oftbeir motion;
plaintiftS malee 111'ob.ieaion to the Court's CODsidc:ration of that dOCllmCllt.
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l04-5 Filed 03/ll/l4 Page 2 of l9
At some time on orprlorto Wednesday, April 17, 2013,photoBflPhs ofthetwoplaintiffi began
ciral1atiDg on these sites. By the dmwon of that same date, 111\V c:nfOrcemaJt authoritiCl had
obtained.Photographs of two iDdividuaIs wharo they snspeetcd ofcausingf1Je bombinBs; tbo5e
two were later icL:ntified iii TIIIlJCrlanllOdDzbokbr Tsamaev. On the SlIIDfi date, the FedaaI
Bureau ofInYe8tiSBtion iaBlled PlaI release, ._ funows:
Ova-the put day and a hilt; there hPe bClQ,a number ofplaS JqlWII based OIl
infonnation &om une1BcialllOllrQll that has been ~ SiDce tbCIe storilll
often have unfntwdcd ~ 1tC Irk tho media, particularly a this CIIrly
BfISe of tile investiBllion, to tll[ereise C!IJitionIDd attempt to ~ lntotmarion
tbrough 'PpiOpxiate official chllD7JCl1r befbre RIpOltiDg.
Durin,g the C'W:IIing of April J 7, 2013, both plaiDlifti Ic:amc:dtbat pieturar of them at the
marmhon apjleIrud on Intcmet rites. lilICh ofthau ~hmtariIy went to a local JlO1icestation.
Zaimi went to thISMalden peJicc stldIon, when! he am: alaJsthy interview with law
mtforcement ~ incfudiug FBI IgcntJ, and oft"Qed to RlrievIt the backpecIc he had been
wearing fi:lrinspeajon. At the conclusion off1Je interview, the aptr told ZUmi that he WII "an
clear" and not to wony. He left the police station at approximately 2:00 LID. on April 18, 2013.
Barhoum went to the .East Boston police BtaIion in the early momiug hours of AprlJ 18, 2013.
Aftlll' telClJ1honingother law llIIforcemant pelsuoneI, the pl!nOIInel with whom. ho spoke lit the
~D told him 1bat he w_DOt a 1P1$p8Ct aud war be 10leave.
At some point that lame night or on the eadymnming of April 18, 2013, the New YoD:
POIt mllUed ita .o\prlll8, 2013, Jlrintcdition IDd In ~on-line stoJy. ThefioDtpage
of the print edition consisted CDtirdy of a photogapb of the fWoPlainti1rs rtand&!g at the
photograph. The headline, reading "BAG MEN," /l1QSUrlld9 x 2 incbes. Uodc::meath the WOlds
-3-
"BAO MEN," a 4 x 4.25 inch sub-headline read "Feds seek thia duo piclUrallIt the Boston
Maratbon."1be lexl box below the sub-hcadHnc Sllmld;
luveaIigators probing tile deadly Bosaon Manithon bombiDp are emaiJingl

aw
-. .
cnfurcemlll2l tgrsu;ia .Photos of thCllCltwomCIIIlClCll on surveiJlaocc near the finish line:,
The Post hal ICllmed. One is canying a cfuffill bIBiDd the other his a bIckpack-which is
not visible in a later photo. 'lbcre is no di!= evidaK:c IinJcjng!ban to the crime, but
authoritle-J WII1lto identitY them.
At the bottom of tho text box, in lcJet' fuot higbligfrted flld, J'IlIlders were instructed 10 "SEE
PAOES 4, S, 6, 7."
p lOur IIId five each c:oOtained a hcedcr It thc top oftbe page tbat read "TERROR
AT TIlEMAMTHON." Aaoas!he two JI8&e8.belowthebeadcn.1ppCBi1ld III 18x l.~ iDch
headline I'IlIIdin& "FHDs HAVB2 MBNlN S~mrrs Pqe five fbdurild two 1dditi0DBl photos
oflhe plaintifli It the tiniah line, one with Jed circI. anJlIIId the plaiDtifti'1ic:es. A caption
.
\lllder tho 0lfJa0 tt'ad "IN FOCUS: Cops are seekins !hole two men (lI!loYc) who wc:rc spotted
ncar the site oftbc Boston b1ests.. The mID in blue (circled left) still has thc bag <Mil' his
sbouJder in the crowd latar, but the blaclc bartpack!heman in the cap WIS wearins is DO IOIJFl"
visible.... ~ uiJdcrlined 9 It .s inch suJ>.heIlllioe iipJlCaiia,g below the two plIoto.s teed "Scen in
pix with baQpack and bag.
The articl", which lIflPIlIied below the llI!l-beed1jne on pqe five, bepn with thc
foUowins:
~ probingthcdcadly BottooJllai ~ an: cizmlatinaphotos of two
men Ipottcd c:batt.ing ncar the pacJca1 ftnish _ The Post.baa lemurcL 1Dthe photos
bciDg distributalby ~lih:cewem offidals IIIDODI tIIcmIelves, one of the DlIlD is
canyiq a blue dDtli:J'bag. The other is waaiJ:Jg I hlacJcbdpU; in the fint photo, t.akca
at 10:53 a.m., but it is JIlIt vislble in the WoDd,lIIba at ]2:30 P.Ill- '"TIle llftaduId photos
are being cin:uJ*d ill an IUanpt to idalli1Y the iudividuaIs h/afiliahtcd thetein, " said an
email, obt.1incd by The POIt. "Feel free to PBSI1his around to Illy of your fellow IIgCIIts
. -
elsewhere.' Meanwhile, officlab have identified two JlOtaItiallUspects who were
capt1IraI on SIIMi1Iance Vide05 tabirI ahonJy bc:fum the deadJy bJam, Jaw-e:nf cemcmt
sources tnld The P08t }'CBtcnfay. Authorities how the names oftbe two D1CIl,but do not
have 1lIlOt'8bevidence to meJce an llI1'elltfilr Mondays attack, whidllci1Ied three and
WOUDdcd176, the IIOUrl:essaid. It was JIDtimmediately dear jf tile mea in Jaw-
t.ll1'oreement pboto& an, Ihe same Dla1 in the surveiJIlDce videos.
The Post'. on-line edition included a virtually idCllllicaJIrtk:le undt.r the lwcfljne, Authorities
circ:uIatAl photos uftwo mea IJIOlIed CIIIJ)Iins hap DeIl'site ofBostoa bomblup. Beneath the
beadllne were tho two phOioaraphs !hat lIppeated on PIF five of tbe print edition, Witil a caption
JllIIdin& "CoJl8 al'c aeelcing these two D1CII(above) w.bo were SPOtted DlI8l' the lilll of the Bostml
bluts." The srt/cle bepn, "lnVClltisatoza Jll'ObiDa the cleadIy Jbton marathon bombinp are
t'ircuJatingphoto, of two man SPOtted cbaffill,gDeartbepaclced finiJhJine." The Post distributed
the print edition throughout Greater Boston, the United States and the world. Dr:feMa
u
,* Lany
Celona, Brad Hamilton, Jamie Schram, Lmma Mongdli, aod ICa1ll1CDwsbCOJItributcd to the
publication u l'CJJOttersfor tho Post, while deti iM!lIIIt l/IDC Doc dc:sisncd lIIIdIo,.,rno1ll the
heedlilles.
Zaimi did DOt Jearn of the Post's lI1'&le UDtiI a1ta" he llIlived at WOlfe on April 18,2013.
Upon his miva1, a IJ18naB!eriufonned him that he bed l:IlJed thC FBI, who said that Zaimi was
!lot a SUSpe\::t Another man.,. then showed him the fiont page ofTbe Post. Upon -JIBhis
Jlietare 1IIIder the bead1ine "BAG MEN,. Zsimi immedi1tdy started shaking his mouth Wllllt:dIy;
and he fcll u thouah he WII havin& a pauic attack. BMihoum 1irIt Jeamed ofPOBt's articJe upon
retun1iDs home nom I trade _at IJl1IZOXimattIy J J:30 a.m. the same~. He observed media
trucla outs:ide ofbis home, ed found I a'llWd ofrepartcu inaidc; filming md iJIlQroRItinB his
P&n:DD. A tqlorter lho1ved him llIi imIBe of the 1i'ompage of The Post. Seeling the publication
-5-
numerous lIIUoJicitcd c;omrrnmiClltiollS by ceI1 phone and aoc:ial media, SOllIe of which eauaed
, for the first time, Bamoum bel:amo tc:uificd, began to 8h8b and sweat, and felt dizzy and
ll8llSeoUS. 1'hen:llfter. S1rIDgen began to ~ both plliutiffil in public. Both rec:ei\-ed
than to be m&bWned. As a result of these IlVIlIItr, plaintiffs alI they "wcR pUt .in fi:ar fur
!heir Jives and suffilred hum, inclwtins but l'lOt linUted to dimase to their JqlulBtion. and
OIljOiDg extrelne emotionaJ dis1reas.
Bued on lheR tiIauaI alIeeationI, the compIaiut sees .fudh iix COllllta asainst all
deftlnd'Dl5. Counta 1, nIIDdHI lh labeled "defamat;onIIibeI po Ie, " based Rlrp.11vcly on the
fi'ollt page, the print article, IlDdthe on.1.lne vaaion. Count IV cIaiIns "N1lJIfsem. Intentiona1
llIIdIor RecJcJ_ JD1liClion otEmotional Dfatrca.. Count V claims mvuion ofprivaey in
~olation ofG. 1. Co 214, i lB. CoUDt VI cIaims "1ilse light illvation of privacy." As toaD
counts. plaimifii seek dam.., ~ fees,Ultcili8t IIld costs.
DlSctlSSION
DismjAal UIIderMus. R. Civ. P. 12 CbX6) is proper where areadiugofthe complaint
cstablishet beyond doubt that thcDcta aIIesed do not sDpjlOit a CIIU8Cof acIian that the law
, ,
.recognizes, IUChthat the plltinli1r. claim is lepIJy iDsufticlcm, Nga,yen v. Wi/l/Qa Juiner
CeII/tlrfor the Shlfiy oj'JVllT tmd Socird CoIlUqllne&s, 450 MlISI. 291, 295-296 (2007). To
BUrVive a motion to disnnss, tbc mmpllIinr must ,_ forth '''allq:ptions plauaibly suBBNting (DOt
merely COJISistaut with)'an emttfemcm to relillf", w.hicb "must be CIIOIJgh to mise II right III relief
above thC S)IeCulBtivelevel." Itl1flUlccltillo v. Ford AfO/Qr Co., 45J Mass. 623, 636 (2008),
QUOting Bell All. Corp. ,11. ~. 550 U.s. 544, 545 (2007).
i-.---
1. Detamd. 0 (Co I, II, adIn). .
Dcfc:Ddlmtl8IJIIC that the de:timation COQDts 1ail to slIIte a claim toa:a'.lhe publiCilion
ine1uded no defiuualoJy liIscbood, mel be':anse it was privile.g&ld IS a 1iir tqlOIt of ofticiallClion.
Both Il'8UmaIf8 TOI)' QDa 1iIc:IllII ISICIrtion thIt aoes be)'DDd the alIllptionl oftbe complaint: that
OIIApnl 17,201;1, an CIIDIil oriiIuaIlYfioman FBI8811l11tinBu&lo clr\:QJatedlmoJlB ofticcn of
variouIlaw eab'*Nlllt IpIc:ier II'OUIIddie COUlItry,iDc:IudiDa tho BOlbi Police DepIltmtiDt, _
with attached pblltoaraphs allowing tile pJaintifti at die DIlIlatbou, aIaq with the foDowins text:
TIie attached pbotos In being cirnnla!ed in an attlImpt to idCllti1Y tbo individuals
lriibligbtal tbeain. Feel fiee to pall thiI arouad to any of your fellow
elscwbert. Thie 11 unclauificd, but I bdieve it is Law I!IlfoICCWCIJI Sararitlve still.
DefaJdaoIl dCI' evid8IOIl of ciraUaticm ofthecmail in tbmi fbrms: (1) an
lIIIIUthCDticated copy ofwhatPWPWII to be the CIDIil atlIcbtd to IbeirlDellUiiidum in IDpport
, .
of the motion to illsmilS; (2) au aftidavit IppeDded to cIefImdants' reply IZII:IDonmdum, signed by
a mimllelJelut of 8IIl111idcmific:dpolice dqlclWt:at, atatiuI that he IllCllived tho emIll ficm
an ofticill of~ Los Ansdes County 8bcIitr. I)qlctmcm on Aprll17, 2013; and (3) copies of _
plcwljugs in IDOther case pcnctiq in thiI Court, SuftbJlc Ovi'J Action No. 2013-2062. rlIat cue,
. -
broUBbt by dcfaldaats' law finn fBlrinot variOlJl M +u.etts Jaw crdixWIII.ent CllItitier, sceIcs
. - -
access to RlCOrdIof c:imuIatlou of the aIJesed email pu!IlIaDt to tfJe Ma.MCbusetts Public
Records Act, G. 1.. c. 66, f J, I:I,eq. The QlIIJp1aiDfin that case an at JIIrI8nJlbs 16-19, tbat
the FBI 8pIIt IeIlt III email. ""'aibcd S"P'fl OIl ApliJ 17, 2013; that otben fozwanlc:d it; ami
th~ lIDIODS1fIo.c wllo tIICllived it OIl that date wae the M'Med"ertts artities JIIIIIed. The
BostonPollee~'s 1IIIWw, filedan JlIlIlWy 29,2014, IIdmite thatit rllaliVed thellIIUd1.
Plainliflj oIUect to the Court'sllODSicleratiozl.oftbeaemaR:ria1s. A. indicated SIIpI'Q, the
-7-
were inWltigators probing the IIWathon bombings; whelJw the circulation ofphotosraphs
lIlDOllglaw cnforI:emcntpcnowel QODstituteaoflicialldionforpmpo8CS oftbef4irnlpOrt
privilege; and whether The Post's.repottilll of it was sw:h as to fall within tbst protcctioJi.
Acx:ordiDgIy, the Court will CODSider tho IIQl\lIIHIIltS pi"" DIedbaed on the aauwpIion that the
cmw supplied was amn'etcd IIDODg IIODIe Iaweuf'OIC&Wllltpersonnel onApri117, 2013, blIt
To 5tatc I claim of dc&mation with n:IpCiCA 10 a JJl8tter of public COlJI:a14 a plaintifflllust
111. facts suftkient to abow 1het the de1buIante published llfataDent, of IIId concemiD& the
plaintiff; that wa., both de&motmy IlJd faIlIll. ~ V. StoM, 420 Mass. 843, 847 (1995). A
stateml!Otis dcliunJltoryifit "would tcDdto hold the pbiDlifflip to scom, hatn:d, ridicule or
contempt. in the IlIiiub of II1IYmnsicknble and 1"CSpeiCIablc 1ICIPDc:nt in the Cliliiiiiiinjty. PJ.1Jm
. v: May Dept. StoIW8 Co., 4043 Mus. 52, 56 (2004). "[TJhe impnfatjon of a crime is cIcf'" 1D!!kl/y
per IC." Id. To ronstituta defanurtjon 011 tblt srouud, tb8 }llIb1icltion.need JJOt lJIC "direct IlJd
eltplicit Iaugu~' .discreditina or imptq a crims to th8pIaiDti1[ lrltIbtur1I v.Boston H~rald- .
1'raw:lu Corp . 347 Mass. 41], 413 (1964). An U.';"'.'hln I1WYbe as ae:tionable as __direct
statcmftlt Id., quotiDB77aayr v. Won:alfll'1'o# Co.. 284 Mae. 160, 162 (1933). Whether II
statemart is n:lIIunab1y 1!J8CA'P1"bleof a defamatOly JDMnin,g .is a qucslion oflaw for the CO\Irt.
p~ 4<43Mass. at 56; Folly v. Lrw.U .5iDI P.1JIWIIIrgCo., 404 Mass. 9, 11 (1989).
With respect to the elcmaot of JiIIsdtood, COUrfImnlric! the IIlCJCdly delimatory report
III a whole to det&smine whelhtbe amor -.nor oftbe report wu mate. SoeMtusOll v. New
YD"" AlagtaI1U!. In"" 501 U.S. 496, '517 (1991). The CoIII't COII8idcnl the impact of the
inacearacy 011 till: reader or Iistaxlr, as CODJp8Jed to the impect of the 1nIfh. See JDItU v. Taibbi;
;,.
400 Mus. 786, 795-796 (1987) (impact of Dw:carate statemCllt did not create substautiany
gRIllta ~ry stiDg tIum lICCUratcnpprt would have). When. statement is sulMtantially
true, s minor inaccuracy will DOt IlUpJlOrt a dafinnetioo claim. Rdl1y v. 17lekrocitlkd Pt-w, 59
Mass. App. Ct. 764, 770 (2003). But the Court DI1ISt adchas the question oftnJth or filIChood
by Jefuence 10 the C02JIDnJIIicati inill entin:ty IIDd the context inwbich it was published, as
well lIlI "{tJhe llIDotiOJJS, pzejudices IIIId intolcraace of mankind llfp1b v. HtlStItrga cl $oM
Pub. Co., 304 M:Jss. 31, 33 (1939).
Applying these stsDdards here, tho Court must determme whetlw, on the fiIctr aIIeged,
iue1udina the 1icts describiD, theOOlltllXl, the pbbJieatiOl1 WU"reuonabIy ~e 10 the
intapatstlon lhat the Jlkintiffs pIrticipItId in the bambi"" or that inV!:Stlpton SIl8peeted lhl!lllJ
of doing so. See Phelan., 443 Masa. at 56; MalxWi, 347 Mass. at 413. Daffl!!dantB cootcIJd tbat
the publication '1\'81not reeaonably 5lIkqItiblc 10 that intapnhtiOD, and that I rcuonable reader
could undarstand it uSS)'iDg no more than the truth: that law enfWCIlIDIIt J'Q1kliUicl wen:
seekins 10identi1y the iDdMduals who Ippeaied in the photopPbs The Court is not JJCmJaded.
To the COulnu)', in the Court'"View, 1reuooab1el1llderc:ouJdOODstrue thcpoblication as
expreuJy hying that law cnfon:emeat JlfIr'IOnod were ....nna DOt only 10 idaJti1Y the plaintiffs.
but also 10Dnd tJlmJ, 8rld. ~ that tho plailltiBi WIre the bombent, or at leut that
investigators IiO IlIIpcctcd. 7
7Somo COUrts, aIthousb DaDe in M"aecblCUll, haw: be1d that when! tfIe aDcgal
dcfam'loly fa1tehood arlscs &om impliCllillJl, ratbc:r tban 1lom direct 1IIlement, tbo Iansueee of
the pubJicslion must "affirmltivdy suaaat tbat tho lUlhor inteods or llDdonesthe infcrc:ace.
Chopu, V.
Kni
gltl-/lJdtl.,.1N:.. pg3 F.2d 1087,1093 (4th Ch. 1993), citiJla' W1Jita. v.F1'r1tt!J"M{
Order ofPoltce, 909 F.2d 512, 520 (D.c. Cir. 1990). Hen:, u in<ficm4. tho riftfiuu1lolymCllrliD'
arises pardy btJt not CIltiIdy by implication. But 8VlllI if iDtentioD 01' ctJdmanCllJt of a
defamatory implication is RlqUinIl!. the .PIlblieation in issue here would support that iufen:ncc. A
.10-
; ..
bomln to the slill in beckpe'*' or dUftle IMp. 1Ddill c:ontelt, lbe COWl'1MwIJjj,.. "BAG MEN,"
in larje ClIpitallettcrs, II:l'OIlI a photosr-ph oftbo rlainlj"* QIJ)'iDa bags, could llIirly have beCIn
undentood to imply that their hlp wen: tbc ones that had lnIolpOiled.tbe bombs. The IqI'''ied
n6rence to OIl8llftbe iDaI cmyiD,g a "'dcpeok that was vUlbleia cerlierphDlolfIPbs but DOt in
laIIlrones could fliztyhavebeeo UDdailtDud to... f thatQlll af'tbepJal'lliffihad 1efthil
backpri: It the.ceae, the JlIrI4 . WII beUevecJ to hive doac. Cowpae~ 420
Maa.1t SSG-aSl ~ ~ Rebbey"' in titleoflmJacbst aboIlt iJvAuwiee CClmpIDy
practillOl COIJldDOtnlIl"'Pblybe iDtapiet.d HterI1Iyto meau that pJointfft' OliiIQuillD:!JDsbway
tObbery); NtIt'lA.u'1l ofGwt. E/JrJ.. Inc. v. CerJnIl ~ CoIp., 379 Mau. 220, 228
(i979) (1abelitl, UJJion.IeIden tactiCi II -CODmIUDlsm-19 "Ct]oo lIDIOl]lbouIacfllra:taizalion to
beIctiOQ8b1e"):
. .
"The IIIb-hadIiIle OIl tile COVllr, IIIIIOIIIKliDrtblt "Peds this ~ c:ovIcIAldy be TlllId
to indiattc not just that fedcra1IUthoritiCl weft a ' 1r.,1lIiI men '.ldcmitica, cIefind8Db
19 the molt nalUml rcadiDg af'''5oct... On the iJm ~JII&t apread, the IIJb-hllldin& "PEDS
SA VB2 MEN IN SIGHTS," I10aa with "SCCIl in pix with backpe~ &lidbas. OJ could tiirly be
lClId to lndlattc that fedaI1 audJaritlCllIIBJI'CClaI the two men pic:rlIred in the pbotDsiljN. Sec
tietfindao could .-.iIyllOIICludo !hat ~denta PI" iI, the infOmwt!aa about the .1 in the
iDfIimmatoIy funn Inwhidl it tppeIIed prec:Uely bccaulle the iaIplication of invoM:mcat in the
bombi"J, or of law ado:owent lUlpiaQII of IIdJ. would atIrIllt the II'JIder'. iDIInst to a far
grcal deeree thaDwould I mOte stralgbtfbawiid lICXOWJt oftheanlil.
-11-
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l04-5 Filed 03/ll/l4 Page l0 of l9
HaweDv. EntuprJse hblishing Co. LLC, 455 Mass. 641, 665 (2010) ("Usc af a dctinnato1)'
headline in a -'spspcr lI:pOJ1, qualifiCltiOl1 of which is rotllld only in the leXt of the article, can
render the RIport lllIfair. "). quoting Restatemem (Second) of Torts f 6ll ant. f(l977); C04iJW6
Du/garlan, 420 MIS8. at 850 (dacribins heacUine"Hi,hway Robbery" as "rlleforica1 f10l1rish or
hyperbole, which is Jll'Otectcd 1iom defamatiOl1liabiIity").
The text of the article itself retrQtI s.111lbt1y fu:lm these impH~tions, infonning the n:ader
that the photographs WCf8 being circulated "in an IttclOlpt to identifY' the men showu. It soes on
to report that authorities hlld idartificd "POltlolial 8USpectB, whose DIDJCS authorities 1cncw but
whom they could not yet IlI1'eSt,lIIIdthat 'lilt was not i!lllMdiltely clear" whether tboe two.
shown in IUI'VCillanccvideos, were the ODeS piCllircd in the pho
to
8'llJlbs. A radClr wbo cmfiilly
)lIII'Scdlhcsc senttllCeS might perceive that, if aU1borities were seekins to idemi1Ythe DIal in the
JIhotosraphs, then those men could not bit the "potentiAl suspects" whose names authorities
knew; that iI, ~ to tho lltatanllllt in tho IKticIo, in fact it was "immc:iclWdy c:IC11r" that thtl
paim Wt:rcnot the 1IlDe.. But an ordinUyreader could easily came away with the hilJliClSJil)nthat
tIic mCli pietuR:d in what the front PIae had refaxed to lIS"IurveiIlancc photof" weq indocd the
"potential Slltpe<:1s" identified 1iom 5UrVl:!JIIarJIl vidcoa, or WClieotbS'Wise in lOme way involved
in the crime.
This intcprelation is IlOf, as deti!udants COl1teIld, "unreuoDably stxaincd." KInf v. Globe
Newspapu Co., 400 Mau. 70s, 7Jl (1987). The Jlliblic:ation is not in a 10rm !hat would 8llsgest
opinion. Compare Id. (P01i1k:alI:auOClll); AkJoIIpD/iA v. Globe NWISpaper Co., 398 Mas. 731,
734 (1986) (o,wd columa). Nor do plaintffllr rast their clAimsOQan _ClaIpt cabo out of ciwrtext,
or on distortion oiword usage. Com~ Damon v. Moore, 520 F.3d 98. J 06 (I st Cir. 2008)
-12-
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l04-5 Filed 03/ll/l4 Page ll of l9
(sixtcc:n seconds \JUt of two-and-a.ha1fbour cIoaunentaIy); ~ v.1'rt1vidence JOUT7ItIl Co.,
508 F.2d 656,659 (latCir. 1975) (report ofaiminal cbargenot rcuonablyintCl}4ded as
asaertion of guilt). Defeodants' publication txpIess1y stites tIurt autboritiel were "seek[ing]" the
two mIlOshown, as IlIthoritillS would be e:tpeded to do with lQipec;t to S1IIJlCCb.In the &ctual
context, the hcBdlines, sub-bcad
1i
nes, photoJl'llPhs, IDIl p1acemeat, alq with !be lllptl8ted
emphui. on ODe beokpack not being vUibJe in Ia1Isrphotojriphs, all contI1'butlld to ihc
illlp.&sion that tlte two men ShoWDwere iIIIJlCClI.lDIl thst thllill WI8 J'tIISOll to beliilWl they had
COllIlDiUcd!he aimc. ('unpale Friedmanv. B~ 1lroIIIJCarINl,I"c., 402 Masa. 376, 381
(1988) (rmplieatiou that fiutberiJJvestiption of p1Unrifl's might be appiopriaw wu non-
actiODllbJeopinicn).
Ddaldants empblSize the stalancIIIt in the box on the 1i'OlItpep that ,tJlun is no direc:t
evidellce linking them to the criJue." C8utioDluyte.rma in I publicltion certaiD1ywammt
considc:tation. SceL}'OII.rv. GJo1N~ Co., 415 MlISS.258, 263(1993) CW11Je oourtmust
give weiBbt to cautioDaly tcmIII used by the ptInOil publjshing the Jh!!aDeut "). But this
disclaimer, c:vcn ifa n:adcr DOIicedit lIllIidst thDmudllaipr bMdJjl'Cll, IICCSkmto" v: ~
Corp., 4311F.3d 119, 126-128 (lit CU. 2006), wou1d have accoinplisbed 1ittIc to dispd the
ovaal1 impact of the publication. . ''Dircc:t evideDl:c" is not MN"M'y c:vcnto ClStlblisbproof
beyond a I'll8SOnIJbledoubt. See ~h v. Doslh, 425 Mass- 372, 375 (1997) ("'Ibc:rc is
DO difti:rcnc:e in probative value belwllell'direct lIlIddn::w"s""tial evideace. ',. SliDI_ iii direct
evidelIce !'Iflllf!IS8l)' to CXIIM:y to racIera the imprenion that two people labeled "bag men" whom
"Feds seek" wen: ~ of or. kaat suspects in a homlndous QiJne committed bymeana
ofbombs cairied il1 bags. See Bruwn v. HlItlnl Corp., 54 F.3d 21, 24-25 (1st Cir.199S)
-13-
~-- ~
, .'
(althou.gh television report made clear that lIFe was DO directcvidalce fhstPlaiutiffhBd
umrdercd his wife, that impliCation lBD ~ ,the JllOlllUD like a SOld 1Im:IId").
~ls que that any tmlnOOlll impItssion could have bannedthoplaintiffs'
reputmlllll only :IIDODIreaders who recollDized them, lIlld that sudJ. J'll8daB would hawbeeII the
ones mo.st liIcely to read the e&ItiIearticle carefully ClDO\I8bto avoid IDYsuch iwpJtiAiion. Bid the
fac:tIJalleged mute that!healy. As n:citcd 6JI{Jrtl, plaimit'f zam's maDItp:r called the FBI, who
infunned him thot Zaimi WIISnot a IIISpeCt; it may be _nd that he thouPt othc:rwiae lIpOIl
reading the lIrtida. News media lCIptOScatatjves idmtificd Bazhoum, it may be infem:d throusb
contact with 1ODl8ODOwho rec:Qgni7.lld him And both plaintiff, c:xpcIriClllClld unsolicited ml
mghtcniDl COII1JJIlmiClltions. niae 8llcgadaos 1ftmflic:itGt at, this prdiminery stqc to support
the infaeoce that at Jout 80IIIe nlIden who m:osnized theplaimifli gave ~ to tho
~on ofthcirinvolvaneotinthe crime, oridenlfficd himtvotbas whodid, IUdllhatthc
article triuerect JIlIImtv thcirRpUlation. SceMabanli, 347 Mass. at 414 (mtide rcfi:rcDciDg
, ,
"lIIIll8lnod Iawym" implicated in Wl'OIIgdolug, featwiug plaintifF. photograph wilhout
meationinghisnamo, oould"give rlse to inNteocehe was oaesuch Iaw,ycr); Sttmkm, 438 F.3d at
128-129 (deBpiM disc1a1ma; pIaiDti1h pbotoJrapb beueath hcwDjQOabout teenage sex could lead
reasonable IClldcr to "eonciude that the teeDIp ,girl depicted in the photognph .. is sexually
active and ClIPBas in at least some 1bmJ of sex\1Il miscondact").
Defllndanta invola: the lJOoC8I1od "fair report privilop, n which Jlioll:ctli ''those who RlpOrt
on statcmentllrmo.l actions 90 long8lItbe stafements or aetioas are official_so long u the
report about fhcul iI :fiUrEd IICC:InIe.n HoweJl v. E1uvprlse PubIIs"botl co., u.e. 455 Mus. at
651. As that aull explains, the privilege reflectlI the reeogaition that the pubfic', "inteiest in
-14- '
BubjectiJlg officil~ actions IIId llatemems to public SQutiDyoutweigbs the definnatory barm that
wouldothezwise be actionable" 88 aJ'ClllJt ofrepwta olsuch setioauDd sta!emeots." id.t65~.
. To.serve tbat Policy, tho l'riWeBe is "CODSIrued JibcraJ1yand with lIIlll)'ll toward disposIDg of
cases at an emJy SIlIge of litlgaIion. Id. It 653. .
A report 1il1awilbin the privilege itit iI "ofanoflicill lIClion orpmcceding," and ill
"'mate and completil ora fairlbridgmauof!heOClClllICDl:erqMled." Id. at 652, qllOtiag.
Rcataltiuent (Scumd) of Torts A 611 (1977). An "official action or ~ forJllDPOSllSof
the privilqe, ill the "adnrinil!rat!on of public duties" or "Ibe CIterebc oftbo)lC)Wa" of govaument
to ClllISCevaus to occur OTto ilnpact the status ofriBbts Ql'TIlI01II'CeI. n Jt1. at 654. That
. .
definitioDe:xtmIds IIleat to "forms] (lIS opposed to inftlrmal), SOvrmmmtal (18 opposed to
privata) pmceedilJ&lllld 1ICli0DS," Id. at 656. RqIorts of official stItcIDculs also ~ for the
. .
privilege, 18 long u the reports fiirly and acx:uratcIy dclK:n'bo the ~ Id. 11657.
Whether a report is 1iir IIId aa:uratc iB qDCIIion ofn to 110detetn:dned by the Court.
Id. at 661. A report is ~ ifit"conveys to the pcrliOIIS who read it.anrbsran+i,llycxnm:t
/lCQ)UI1tof the pro<:eediIIp"; it is 1iir ifi!"is 1IOt cdi1I:dmt dc1cled to mWc:p:eai:itt the
~MjDg and tImabe JDiJh:ading."Id. at 661-662, quotingRamtanaIt (SCCODd)ofToits
i 61] ant. f(1977). AlthouBh!he CODeClplI edisIinct, thcytald to JDaF iu application. A
repOrt thai is sub'lllmtiaUy aecurato may till within tho prlyj)cp if ita impacl"did DOt aaste a
snbstantienY grctItcr defamatmy stiDgthan an KCWateJ'Cj)Oil" would bYe. rd. 11662, quoting
.
J01I6S v. Taibbi. -100 Mus. 786, 79s.796 (1987). "A IIlItlImaIt is exmojr!cnd fair report 'if its
'BiSI' or 'sting' if, true, that ia, if it produces the I8IIle affect on the miad oftbe reeipier.rt which
the precise truth would have JlI'Odooed. no Elm Med. Lttb.. IItC.. v. RKO Ge1L. Inc., 403 Mus. 779,
-IS.
~ cirouIatiorl oft!ul email qualm", as oftk:ial aclion, the qDClItionbcoornQ
whether The P05l'S report of it WlISfiiir IDd lC(;WaIt:. The Court COIlCIudes thlIt it was DOt. The
ponions of the publication that n:port dircQIy on the email are 8CCIIIate,or It leut substantil1ly
80. But the publi.:ation 18 a whole goes. Carbe)'oDcI1'ClpOI'tiDgon c:irculation of!he email. The
pubHcation may he ICIId as staling that invcadaMois were 8Cllllcins the pl.intiffs, nol just
information about their idcllttty. That ,nttement, along wi1h the iDfIamnwmy headlinCll, IIIldthe
-16-
other aspects diSCl1SSedwpra, could be cxllCcled tohaw: ~ far JIIOle damaging effect in tho minds
of a I'CIl!l!lTlab1e reader than 11'CpOrt that law llIIforcc:mcnt Offlc:en werc soekingmerely to id8qtitY
the men in the ~ The Co1llt couc:hIdea, thetefJIo, that clafi:nd1D18me DOtCZItitIedto
dianiasal based 00 the fair RpOrt privilege.
Z. IIiOfedoa of DJotloDaJ DIstrea (Coum IV).
. The c!efelJdaDtsIrJU8 that the comp1lint 1iiII to ali. &cbi lIIJ1IiciClJtto $UppOrt a claim
of Ilither inteotionaJ or ncgIigeQt infliction of ~ ~BIraIs. To state a claim ofintcnlionaJ
intlietion of lllIlOlionaJ distress, a plaintiff must aDcge &c::jrsufficient to thaw "(I) that the actor'
intmJded to in1lict emotional diItn:a or tha he !mew or douId have known !bat emotionaJ
disIn:sa was the liblyresult onu. conduct ; (2) that dte conduct WIll extreme &lid
outraaeous, WlllJ bll)'OZldall POSlibJe boUllds of dccx:uc:y aJid WIS UUeriy into!crlbJe in civilized
COJnDlIlllil)'.. ; (3) that the aaiODS oflbe defa!dant ~ the CIlIJcl offbe pJaimiB's diJtress . ;
and (4) that the emotionaJ di.best summed by the )l1aimftrwu ere." HowdJ, 455 Mass. at
672 (qUOlltiODI omittcd); As'" v. HolWUti JDlJnsClll Co., 3;71Mau. 140, 145 (1976). The facllr
. .
alIllSl'd here, alOll8 with J'llllSOJJableinfeJences t1Ierefiow,iin the Court's view me SJJfficicnt to
support eacb eUmaJt.
,
At to the liIlt c1c:mcut, elthmJih there i. JIObasis ~ believe that det'end"Jl1J inteaded to
inflict t'lmOtiON] diltren, a 1ic:tfimi'lll' could JflI!Onsb1y ~ that defandalJts bJew or should have
known that the publication wouJd 1ikdy QIUIe tho indMdbw pictured Ibd lefollied to in it to
I!Xpllrience emotional di&lresI. As to whether the 00lIdu~ wu extreme and 01JtJI&e0us, the Court
CODaiderwthe &dual CllIItc1t~lyth. hoIreadou.!Wure of the c:rime, the strona IDd
wid~ public reaction, the FBr. CIIlItionuy notice td news media, and the intense 0JIB0ing
-17-
effort to ldclIti1y BDdfind the papc:traton. 1beso circumIIluu:cs c:ould "reaaonably . lead the
Mer of fact to c:oncludc thBt'dle defmdilltl' Candua \\'Q extreme and outnpout, havill8 a IllVa'C
." "
acd tralmuItic effect 11pOIIthe pltinti1Jl:a1 c:motioIIaI 1rInquility." AgLt v. HD'IIItUtl JoIuuo" Co.,
371 Mw. It ]45; _lito Bqyk Y. "'-' 378 Mus. 592, 596 (1979) (DOtiDBthe JipifiClllC8 of
the defWv!8lIt'. failure to honor plaintiff'. n:queat to stop harassing bet in 8IIll1ysi. ofwhcllbes-
c:onductwu extreme 811doutLigeOus); TdPlv.hrt:. v.A.M.J, 59Mass.App. Ct. 12,26 (2003)
(falrc lIDddcfimatOJy BWements IUfficiilat tD Mg-'iln' Ilcmc lIJd"ouUqeous concIuct);
CODIpanlRidley v. ,4/r1fR1crm Auto. Auli., ~, 380 Mau. 835, 839 (1980) (cfiIc:harp of
probationazy empJ~ a1tcr Jlf'l1onIrdablC'lCC WIt Dot exticmc and ~). lui tD1ho tbini
IIId fourth e1emc:al1, thel1kptiOlll that 1IJIClI1seeiDathepub!ieati/lll CIIdl oftheplajntffti
CltplIriImced symptoms IIICh u shaJdD& IWC:lIdDr. dlymoufh, IIClIIO ofpanic, "1 inc..1Dd
DaUIaIlRsumclcmttDsupportthe claim. See&dltwmv.B~ Gdi Co., 414Mass. 129,]31,
139 (]m); DtGlowuml v. Lalinwr, 390 Mass. 265, 487 (1983); PtI]fOII v..4bbo1t 1dJI, 386
Mw. 540, 556 C1982),. ~ v. B~ 315 Mast. 555,556 (]m).
The &eli a1lrpd ~y IUpport a cIIimot:DeJllJmt iuflic60n or-otioDal di-.s,
for whidI noithcr iDtem Dlr 8IltnWe or oobpC)\4 c:Ondlict it "'9
uired
Such a claim does
" "
Gar Co., 4]4 Mna. It ]31, 139;HnM
M
v. (}p.w/rz, 410 Mau. 855, 871 (1991); PflyImt, 386
Man. It 555, bill the factr alJqedJunmeet tbatrlllJuirllllloit!
'As defendlllta point oat, plainti& CIIIIIOt use. c:Iaimof~ dim. tD c:ircumvent
First A!NI!cImeat )IIob.: 'klas for IJl"'ldL nzu., 1III.J!tlrmte ftndf tbu the p'mmlliClll wu !me,.
or not defimstOry, would prccJude reco~ OIl tile IIDOtklaIl diaIras cJ.aim. As di'CUlllld SIIprtl.
however, on 1be facia aUCFd the &e:tfindcr could ftod thIt tfle JlllbJicatjon wu both &lie IIIId
" defamatozy. It so, the lIIDOtionaIdialrat claim WOIl1clallow r8CCMl'y tbr emoticlIlal hmn, along
-IS.
3. G. L. e. 214,IiB, lUId FaIleIJPt (CoUDtI Vad VI).
Oem:nd laws ~ 214, f IB, provides: "A pcr80lI shaI1have a right apinst
unreasonable, subslantla1 or serious ~ with his privacy. The superior court shaII have
' .
imisdictiOD in eq alty to l!IIlfilrce IIICh right IDd in c:onnection therewilh to aWud damages." The
statute provides u cause of aetioiI for discIosurD of"1icls about au individual that me of a highly
pcnonal or intimate IIIIlUrc when tbcrc c:xiIt8 DO lesithnete coUDtervailing intttest, " M~ v.
TaunlDn, 410 Mnst. 631, 637 (1991), or "private coaduct whiclt is DO bnsinClaa of1be pablic lUld
the pubHclzing 0f which JI, lbaefote, o1J'msiw. to Ct(tIlv v. Globe NeW6paper Co., 8 Mass. App.
Ct 71, 77 (1979); seeA,ya,h v.1JanlI.Frubu CaN:r butllJile, 443 Mas. 367, 382 (2005). "The
8ppCIIraDCeof a J>aBOIl in a public place nlllW!miIy inw1vcs' dofIiDg the clOlk ofprivacywhiclJ
the law protecl8." 6r/aJu,.tJ4pTa, citing 11Iumo v. NeW.Eng/tmd NewsptzpD' Pub1isIrbrg Co., 306
Mass. S4, 58 (l94(; sec Resl.ce1"cl1t (Second) ofTOltS f 6520, cmL b (photograph invades
privacyiftalcell in private!pllCe but DOtif taken mpublic space).
The fads al\eged hco involvo DOpubliciziDr of private C:O!l!"v,,; the photographs abow
the plaintifJi attending a public C\1II1t in a public place. The Court concludes, thtic:fute, that the
c:omplaint fiIi1atv state a c1ahn Imdlll' G. 1.. c:.214, lIB. Ai to tbct filse light theory,
Massachusetts law does not rccoplzc: any lRlCh tort. Sec A)'tUi v. Dtma-FarIJer C'ancu
[mlilllle, 443 M8a. It 382 n,16; ELM Med. LRb..lnc., v. RKO GtDI.,lnc., 0403Mass. 779, 787
(1989). Dofendanl5' motion will be alIOWl:d IS to aJllDt8 V aud VI.
'Withthe I'tCOVel), for ~ harm that would be available on !he dcfiunwtion claims.
-19-
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasoll5 stated, the ~. motion to dismiss is DENIED as to COUIIlJ1,II, HI,
and IV and AI.lpw!tD as 10c;ounts V and VI.
March 5", 2014
.20-
ACE OF SPADES SPEAKING AT CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ACTION CONFERENCE
E~ (F
20
ACE OF SPADES COVERED BY FOX NEWS
21
Ace of Spades In Village Voice
22

ECF 104 Redacted

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ECF 104 Redacted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

In the first, article, http://mjnx.ccl?post=329569herepublished a post

luveaIigators probing tile deadly Bosaon Manithon bombiDp are emaiJingl

You might also like