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

v.
SETH ALLEN, Defendant

Case No. 339254V

FEB - 7 701Z
Clerk of the Circuit Court Montgomery County, Md.

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO UNSEAL PLEADINGS RELATED TO [NAME REDACTED) AKA AARON WORTHING

Now COMES, John Doe, an anonymous blogger who writes under the names "Aaron Worthing," and "AW." and files this opposition to the Plaintiffs motion to unseal. From here on in, I will refer to myself in the third person as "Mr. Worthing." Mr. Worthing files this opposition under this pseudonym in order to maintain the very anonymity he is asking this court to preserve. I
1.

Mr. Worthing respectfully requests that the court deny the Plaintiffs motion to

unseal.

The Plaintiff s arguments for unsealing the documents that reveal Mr. Worthing's

identity, and current address are without merit-indeed are often built on lies2 told to this court.

As a preliminary matter, this court has granted Mr. Worthing's motion to file anonymously or to file under seal. In it, Mr. Worthing requested that the court grant Mr. Worthing the right to file .anonymously, or to file one copy under seal under his real name, and then file a public copy of the document with his real name omitted. Mr. Worthing interprets the judge's ruling as giving him the option pursuing either option. However, if this court prefers that Mr. Worthing file a copy under seal under his real name, he will happily do so. 2 Ordinarily Mr. Worthing is reluctant to call an opposing party a liar when a mistake might be an honest one. But given the Plaintiffs serial falsehoods that Mr. Worthing documented in his
I

2.

The Plaintiff begins by misleading this court about what it actually ruled, writing

in paragraph 1: "[f]irst, it was [Aaron Worthing], through his attorney, who requested that his Motion to Quash with Exhibits be sealed." This is a misstatement of what Mr. Worthing asked of this court and what was granted. Mr. Worthing moved this court to allow him to proceed before this court anonymously. He moved that this court allow him to go forward in one of two ways: 1) by allowing Mr. Worthing to file pleadings entirely anonymously, or 2) by allowing Mr. Worthing to file one copy of all filings under seal with his real name and contact information, and then to file a copy in which that information was redacted that would be served on the other parties.
Mr. Worthing has never asked that the December 29, 2011 motions to be placed

completely under seal. He has consistently asked this court only to seal documents containing
his name, contact information and any other information tending to identify him.

3.

The Plaintiff goes on, continuing to misstate what Mr. Worthing sought in the

very next line: "Mr. [Worthing] then appeared in Court on Ja[nu]ary 9th and made an emergency oral motion to seal both his motion and Plaintiff s response, which the Court granted." A review of the recordings from the hearing will reveal that Mr. Worthing appeared solely to place the Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw as Moot under seal. The court also took that occasion on which to grant Mr. Worthing's Motion to File Anonymously or to File Under Seal as well, but Mr. Worthing did not appear that day to advocate for that motion and of course this court did actually not place his pleadings under seal. 4. Therefore the Plaintiffs complaint that "Mr. [Worthing] has posted his Motion to

Quash and all its exhibits on his personal blog, called www.Allergic2Bull.blogspot.com.. is

"Motion to Quash and his "Motion to place the Plaintiffs 'Plaintiffs Response... ' Under Seal and to Dismiss the Underlying Injunction" Mr. Worthing believes that the Plaintiff has lost any presumption of honesty. 2

without merit. Since Mr. Worthing never asked for his motion to quash to sealed in its entirety, but only proposed filing a copy with his name and other identifying information under seal as one of two possible ways of allowing him to challenge the Plaintiff s subpoenas without shedding the very anonymity he sought to protect and since his motion to quash was not actually placed under seal, Mr. Worthing is neither violating the letter nor spirit of this court's order by posting a copy of that motion online that doesn't list his name, address or any other information tending to identify him. A copy of that post is attached to this Opposition as Exhibit A, so that this court can read over it and see for itself that it doesn't contain any information that Mr. Worthing did not consent to be in the public record-and indeed is presently part of the public record. 5. The Plaintiffs real purpose in filing this motion is to retaliate against Mr.

Worthing for publicizing his Motion to Quash, and the way it has exposed the Plaintiffs misconduct in this case, including the very credible allegations that Mr. Worthing has made in his filing that the Plaintiff, a convicted perjurer, committed peIjury again in his November 14, 2011 hearing. By his own admission, the Plaintiff demanded that Mr. Worthing remove this post under threat that he would ask this court to unseal the Motion to Withdraw which improperly containing Mr. Worthing's name, address and other personal information. Since the Plaintiff has admitted to law enforcement officials that that "there exists the very real probability that [Mr. Worthing] could be subjected to serious harm or death" if my identity is exposed (see Plaintiffs "Response to John Doe Aaron Worthing's Emergency Request to Seal Plaintiffs Motion" Exhibit C, page 2) this was a threat to attempt to expose Mr. Worthing and his wife to that danger, bordering on extortion. And thus this motion represents the Plaintiffs attempt to retaliate

against Mr. Worthing for once again refusing to give into the Plaintiffs extortionate demands.

6.

The Plaintiff also complains speciously that "it would be unfair for [Mr.

Worthing] to post his pleadings on his blog while keeping Plaintiffs responses sealed[.]" The Plaintiff finds himself in this position due to his own misconduct. If his pleadings had been proper in the first place it wouldn't have been necessary to seal them. 7. Moving on, in paragraph 2, the Plaintiff is not lying so much as leaving out so

much information as to be deceitful, by writing: Second, Mr. [Worthing's] contention that he would be in danger if the documents were not sealed is no longer a valid reason for sealing in light of the fact that his identity was exposed on Twitter on January 14, 2012 as follows: "ronbryn Ron Brynaert @ @AaronWorthing AKA [redacted] exploits real names of 9/11 victims in his offensive novel pushed by RW blogs bit.ly/zPgBKr[.]" What the Plaintiff leaves out is that (as Mr. Worthing demonstrated in his December 29, 2011 filing), Mr. Brynaert is a willing conduit for information that the Plaintiff wishes to put into the public sphere. Indeed, the conduct of the Plaintiff, Mr. Brynaert, and Mr. Rauhauser are now the subject of a lawsuit in Virginia, filed Monday, including an allegation of a violation of Va. Code 18.2-499, a criminal statute outlawing conspiracies to unlawfully harm another in their business and reputation. So what the Plaintiff leaves out is that Mr. Brynaert has disclosed this in a tweet that upon infonnation and belief was the result o/the Plaintiff's own actions. 8. But more fundamentally it misrepresents the issue before this court. The question

is whether the Plaintiff should be allowed to use this court as an instrumentality to create "the very real probability that [Mr. Worthing] could be subjected to serious harm or death." The Plaintiff is apparently bound and determined to help any Islamofascist terrorist who might seek to subject Mr. Worthing-and those who surround him-to serious harm or death. He has tried to do so three times now. And today he is asking this court for the "fig leaf' that he or his coconspirators are merely reporting the contents of court documents in the hopes of immunizing

their malicious conduct from legal consequences. In short he wants this court to serve as an accomplice to a violation of Va. Code 18.2-46.5(C) prohibiting any person from causing or attempting to cause another to be the victim of terrorist attack. This court should refuse to aid the Plaintiff in his manifestly improper purpose. 9.
In the same paragraph, he lies to this court again, stating that "Everyone Draw

Mohammed" was an "anti-Muslim blog." The blog took no position on Islam as a whole or on most Muslims, but instead focused solely on protesting the attempt by radicals to infringe on our precious freedom of speech and religion by threatening to kill any person who blasphemed Mohammed. This is indeed why self-identified Muslims themselves have participated in the blog-because they believed in freedom of speech and religion, too. And one would wonder why the Plaintiff even mentions this-what relevance does it have to his motion to unseal?unless the Plaintiff is trying to put into the public record lies that would "inflame [the] hostilities of Muslim hardliners" (plaintiffs motion to Compel, the Plaintiff pretends to be concerned about. 10. This intuition is only heightened when one notices that he doesn't make this
~

4), thus heightening the very danger that

allegation in his January 5,2012 letter (see Plaintiffs "Response to John Doe Aaron Worthing's Emergency Request to Seal Plaintiffs Motion" Exhibit C) alerting authorities of his attempt to reveal Mr. Worthing's name and address in court papers. If the Plaintiff believed that Mr. Worthing's blog was "anti-Muslim" then why didn't he mention it to them? Wouldn't that be highly relevant? Instead in that letter he correctly characterizes Everyone Draw Mohammed as a pro-free-speech blog. The content of the blog didn't change at all between January 5, and

January 17, when he filed his motion to unseal, but his characterization did.

11.

And as stated previously, in paragraph 3 the Plaintiff is simply lying when he said

that Mr. Worthing assaulted him, and this court would be wise not to accept the word of a convicted perjurer and apparent pathological liar as proof on this point. 12. In the same paragraph, the Plaintiff tries to mislead the court again, stating that

"[b]oth of those matters [the alleged assault and the Plaintiffs temporary Peace Order] are in the public court record in [Mr. Worthing's] real name." While that is true, those records do not connect Mr. Worthing's real name with his online pseudonym. A person viewing those records would have no idea that the person named was "Aaron Worthing." 13. In paragraph 4, the Plaintiff argues that because unnamed reporters are interested

in the incident, that he should be able to unseal the records for context. Since these reporters are unnamed, Mr. Worthing doesn't believe the Plaintiff is even telling the truth on this point. However, if any such reporters truly want this information they can come to this court and fIle the motion themselves. Mr. Kimberlin has no standing to assert their interests. However, Mr. Worthing does fmd it odd that the Plaintiff, who has claimed before this court that he is not a public figure, would have reporters following every exploit in his life so closely that they would want to know about an ordinary case of alleged assault. 14. Likewise, in paragraph 5, the Plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to unseal

the documents because [The] Plaintiff has talked with the District of Columbia Bar Counsel's office about Mr. [Worthing]' s assault, and would like to provide the staff there with copies of the sealed documents as part of a bar complaint. First, as usual with the Plaintiff, it is as important to pay as much attention to what he doesn't say as what he says. Expressio unius applies. He doesn't say that the Bar Counsel's office was investigating the matter or indeed expressed any interest in his complaints whatsoever. He

merely states that he "talked" to them. Mr. Worthing assumes it to be true that if an attorney is actually convicted of assault-and not merely accused by a perjurer and serial liar of committing one-that the bar association might discipline him or her at that time; but the bar association is unlikely to take any interest before such conviction is obtained. As for any other complaints about Mr. Worthing's conduct, this court is urged to read Exhibit B, which is a true and correct copy of an email the Plaintiff wrote to then-attorney Beth Kinsley alleging that both he and Ms. Kinsley committed unethical conduct as well as Exhibit C, which is a post at Allergic to Bull where Mr. Worthing responds to the Plaintiff s complaints. This court will quickly see just how seriously a bar association is likely to take the Plaintiffs complaints. 15. In any case, if the Bar Counsel's office wishes to see a copy of any of the sealed

documents, it can make its motion before this court, and this court might on that occasion grant Bar Counsel's office and only the Bar Counsel's office access to those documents. As per their usual practice, Mr. Worthing is confident that they will agree to keep this matter confidential until and unless they choose to seek discipline against him. But there is no justification for revealing this information to the general public, when the Bar Counsel's office has not even shown interest in this case, let alone made a motion to view the sealed docmnents.
CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff has admitted to law enforcement that if Mr. Worthing's real name is revealed to the world that it would create "the very real probability that [Mr. Worthing] could be subj ected to serious harm or death." He has three times attempted to intentionally expose Mr. Worthing to exactly this danger in the public record and today has come to this court seeking its help in doing so. The Plaintiff wants the fig leaf that he is simply reporting the contents of court documents when he reveals that information to the world-including not just Mr. Worthing's

name. but his addresses as well-in the hopes that then he can place Mr. Worthing's life in danger without legal consequence. This court should not allow itself to be used as an instrument of the Plaintiff's malice and therefore deny the Plaintiff Motion to Unseal and provide any other relief that this court considers to be just and equitable. A proposed order is attached. Dated: Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Aaron Worthing Edmd5.20.10@gmail.com AaronJW@gmail.com