You are on page 1of 5

MARYLAND:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

AARON WALKER,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 398855-V

BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL.,


Defendants

PLAINTIFFS MOTION THAT THIS COURT REFRAIN FROM STRIKING SUA


SPONTE THE DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO SECOND
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKE IT AND THE
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND RENEWED REQUEST FOR
AN ORDER OF DEFAULT
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Aaron J. Walker, Esq., and files this Motion that this Court
Refrain from Striking Sua Sponte the Defendants Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Second
Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike It and the Defendants Response to
Plaintiffs Second Renewed Request for an Order of Default.1 He states the following:
1.

On Saturday, July 9, 2016, Mr. Walker was served with the Defendants Reply

to Plaintiffs Opposition to Second Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike It
(hereinafter Reply to Opp. to MSJ) and the Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Second
Renewed Request for an Order of Default (hereinafter Opp. to Default). Immediately, Mr.
Walker noticed that several features of these filings might prompt this Court to strike these
documents sua sponte. However, Mr. Walker doesnt believe it is in his best interest to see these

No docket entries for the Defendants documents are available as of this writing.

documents stricken, and, therefore, Mr. Walker asks that this Court refrain from striking these
documents.
2.

The reasons this Court might strike these documents on its own are as follows:

3.

First, the Defendants have once again failed to serve Mr. Walker by certified mail,

return receipt requested (even as they continue to file false certificates of service claiming that
they had done so). Thus, when the Defendants do not file a certified mail green card proving
service has been complete, this Court would be inclined strike these documents in line with its
prior declarations that it would do so (Dkt. No. 111 and 117).
4.

Second, both contain impertinent, scandalous, and ad hominem material, and thus,

this Court might be tempted to strike the material sua sponte as it had at Dkt. No. 158. For
instance, paragraph three of their Opp. to Default contains a bigoted attack on Mr. Walker for his
disabilities. Likewise, in paragraph six of their Reply to Opp. to MSJ, they make a false and
evidence-free claim that Mr. Walker is one of the most hated, depraved and repulsive people on
the planet because of his efforts to defend freedom of speech against Islamofascist terrorism
absurdly comparing Mr. Walker to Charles Manson. Further, the Defendants falsely state that
Mr. Walkers claim for injunctive relief was dismissed. No such dismissal was granted. See
Dkt. Nos. 107 and 116. All of these statements might reasonably tempt this Court to strike these
filings without being asked.
5.

However, Mr. Walker asks this Court to refrain from such sua sponte action.

Although Mr. Walker believes that ordinarily it would be appropriate to strike this material, Mr.
Walker moves this Court to forebear the Defendants bad faith in relation to these two filings in
order to preserve a record of the Defendants misconduct. Specifically, Mr. Walker wants this
Court to keep the Opp. to Default as part of the record precisely because their bigoted attacks on

Mr. Walker shows their bad faith. Further, he wants their Reply to Opp. to MSJ to be preserved
because in it, they admit that they have not obeyed this Courts order in regard to service of
process. He anticipates that any victory on Mr. Walkers part is likely to be appealed ad
nauseum, and he wants these documents to be part of the record on appeal.
6.

Finally, Mr. Walker this motion should not be interpreted as withdrawing any

prior request to strike any other document.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Court refrains
from striking the Defendants Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Second Motion for Summary
Judgment and Motion to Strike It and the Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Second
Renewed Request for an Order of Default in order to preserve a record of the Defendants
misconduct. Further, this Court should provide any other relief that is just and equitable.

Monday, July 11, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

Aaron J. Walker, Esq.


Va Bar# 48882
P.O. Box 3075
Manassas, Virginia 20108
AaronJW72@gmail.com
(703) 216-0455
(no fax)

VERIFICATION
I, Aaron Walker, solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the
foregoing paper are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Dated:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the
day of
, 2016, I served copies of this
document on Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin at 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817.

MARYLAND:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

AARON WALKER,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 398855-V

BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL.,


Defendants

ORDER REFRAINING FROM STRIKING CERTAIN MATERIALS


Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs Motion that this Court Refrain from Striking Sua
Sponte the Defendants Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Second Motion for Summary
Judgment and Motion to Strike It and the Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Second Renewed
Request for an Order of Default. and any other filing in support or opposition thereto, it is this
day of

, 2016, hereby

ORDERED that even though grounds might exist to strike the Defendants Reply to
Plaintiffs Opposition to Second Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike It and the
Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Second Renewed Request for an Order of Default, this
Court shall refrain from striking such documents at the Plaintiffs request.

Hon. Michael D. Mason


Judge, Circuit Court of Maryland for Montgomery County