opp. to discovery intermarkets (redaction)

8/20/2019 Opp. to Discovery Intermarkets (Redaction)

1/25

MARYLAND:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Brett Kimberlin,

Plainti

!" Ca#e N$" %&'()(*

Nati$nal Bl$++er# Clb, et al",

Deen-ant#

DEFENDANT .ALKER/0 OPPO0ITION TO THE PLAINTIFF/0 MOTION TO

COMPEL PRE1ACTION DI0CLO0URE REGARDING DEFENDANT ANONYMOU0

BLOGGER ACE OF 0PADE0 AND BLOG ACE OF 0PADE0 2DKT" NO" '34

NOW COMES Defendant Aaron J. Walker, Esq., and files this Opposition to the Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel PreA!tion Dis!los"re #e$ardin$ Defendant Anon%mo"s &lo$$er A!e of

Spades and &lo$ A!e of Spades and states the follo'in$(

1. Mr. Walker )elie*es that he has standin$ to !hallen$e this Motion )e!a"se Mr.

Walker has a ri$ht to see his part of the !ase resol*ed rapidl% "nder MD CODE Cts. + J"d. Pro!.

-/01d2132 and the instant motion threatens to slo' do'n s"!h resol"tion. Mr. Walker also

"r$es that this Co"rt adopt pro!ed"res allo'in$ for anon%mo"s o)4e!tions to dis!los"re

!ontained in 5A. CODE ./36/0.3 so that the affe!ted parties !an respond for themsel*es.

2. On J"l% 30, 7/3-, this Co"rt held a s!hed"lin$ hearin$ at 'hi!h the Plaintiff did

not sho', reportedl% profferin$ the q"estiona)le e8!"se that he ass"med Mr. Walker’s Motion to

Contin"e 1Dkt. No. 732 had )een $ranted. 9n fa!t, it had )een denied, and the Plaintiff has )een

in eno"$h !o"rtrooms in his life to kno' that nothin$ is !ontin"ed "ntil the 4"d$e sa%s it is

!ontin"ed.


2/25

3. On the same date, the Plaintiff filed a :Motion to Compel PreA!tion Dis!los"re

Dire!tin$ 9ntermarkets 9n!. to Dis!lose the 9dentit% and Address of Defendant Anon%mo"s

&lo$$er A!e of Spades and &lo$ A!e of Spades; 1Dkt. No. irst Amendment ri$ht to anon%mo"s spee!h. As the S"preme Co"rt stated

3 Memoriali?ed in this Co"rt’s Order of J"l% 77, 7/3- 1Dkt. No.


3/25

in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, -36 @.S.


4/25

in*ol*es a different tort than defamation alle$edl% !ommitted )% an anon%mo"s 'riter on the

9nternet, the plaintiff m"st pro*ide prima fa!ie e*iden!e for th!t !a"se of a!tion.

$. >"rther, the #rodie !o"rt $a*e the follo'in$ additional $"idan!e to trial !o"rts(

=h"s, 'hen a trial !o"rt is !onfronted 'ith a defamation a!tion in 'hi!h

anon%mo"s speakers or pse"don%ms are in*ol*ed, it sho"ld, 132 req"ire the

plaintiff to "ndertake efforts to notif% the anon%mo"s posters that the% are thes")4e!t of a s")poena or appli!ation for an order of dis!los"re, in!l"din$ postin$ a

messa$e of notifi!ation of the identit% dis!o*er% req"est on the messa$e )oardF

172 'ithhold a!tion to afford the anon%mo"s posters a reasona)le opport"nit% to

file and ser*e opposition to the appli!ationF 1


5/25

A" T5e M$ti$n t$ C$m6el 05$l- Be Denie- Be7a#e t5e Plainti Ha# Faile- t$ 0tate a

Claim A+ain#t 8A7e $ 06a-e#9 a# Eit5er a Per#$n $r a Bl$+, an- t5e 0it 05$l- Be

Di#mi##e- $r B$t5

1-. =he Plaintiff’s Complaint is defi!ient on its fa!e in relation to all parties, )"t in

parti!"lar as it relates to A!e of Spades. =he !learest error the Plaintiff has made is in s"in$

:A!e of Spades, the &lo$.; Be does not alle$e that this )lo$ is an% kind of le$al entit%, onl% that

it is a 'e)site on the 9nternet, and that it 'as re$istered )% :Mi!helle Herr; 'ho is not named as

a defendant. =herefore the Plaintiff has failed to alle$e an% fa!ts that 'o"ld allo' this Co"rt to

!on!l"de that :A!e of Spades, the &lo$; is a)le to s"e or )e s"ed "nder Mar%land la' in the first

pla!e. 9t is like s"in$ a !ar in relation to an a"to a!!ident. 9t is nonsensi!al.

11. 9n addition to that, Mr. Walker has alread% !atalo$"ed the ma4orit% of the le$ion

of short!omin$s in the Complaint in his motion to dismiss and a!!ompan%in$ memorand"m

1Dkt. No. 2. =he ma4orit% of those ar$"ments, altho"$h tailored to the alle$ations re$ardin$ Mr.

Walker, appl% 'ith eq"al for!e to the person or persons 'ho 'rite as :A!e of Spa!es;

1hereinafter :A!e;2. A!!ordin$l%, Mr. Walker in!orporates those ar$"ments )% referen!e.

B" T5e M$ti$n 05$l- Be Denie- Be7a#e t5e Plainti Ha# Faile- t$ E#tabli#5 T5at

T5i# C$rt .$l- Ha!e Per#$nal ri#-i7ti$n O!er A7e"

12. One ar$"ment that Mr. Walker did not !hoose to raise in his motion to dismiss and

a!!ompan%in$ memorand"m 1Dkt. No. 2 is the iss"e of personal 4"risdi!tion. 9t is !lear on the

fa!e of the Complaint that the Plaintiff has failed to alle$e an% fa!ts esta)lishin$ that A!e !an )e

properl% s")4e!ted to personal 4"risdi!tion in the state of Mar%land. As noted in !ylor v. C/0,

33 Md.App.


6/25

raised, is "pon the plaintiff; and, therefore, :Iplaintiffs m"st esta)lish a prima fa!ie !ase for

personal 4"risdi!tion to defeat a motion to dismiss.; 1internal q"otation marks and !itations

omitted2. =he Plaintiff has failed to properl% alle$e that 4"risdi!tion e8ists, let alone pro*ide

prima fa!ie e*iden!e for it.

132 =he Plaintiff has >ailed to Demonstrate that this Co"rt Bas J"risdi!tion O*er A!e@nder An% Pro*ision of Mar%land’s on$ Arm Stat"te.

13. =he onl% attempt the Plaintiff makes to alle$e that Mar%land has 4"risdi!tion o*er

this matter is his !on!l"sor% alle$ation that :the !laims are all Mar%land state la' torts and the

Defendants dire!ted their !ond"!t at Mar%land.; Bo'e*er, !on!l"sor% statements are not to )e

!redited. 00C v. #, 63< Md.


7/25

defendant 'ho :Itransa!ts an% )"siness or performs an% !hara!ter of 'ork or ser*i!e in the

State;F 3/


8/25

Bo'e*er, in response to this Opposition, the Plaintiff is likel% to make the ar$"ment that A!e

soli!its donations :from Mar%landers; )% *irt"e of the fa!t that A!e alle$edl% soli!its donations

from e*er%one in the 'orld, and that A!e mi$ht ha*e e*en re!ei*ed donations from Mar%landers.

9t is 'orth'hile to preempt that ar$"ment.

1$. S"!h alle$ed donations are not s"ffi!ient to tri$$er s")se!tion 1)2132 )e!a"se, like

the rest of s")se!tion 1)2, it is s")4e!t to s")se!tion 1a2’s !ondition that :Iif 4"risdi!tion o*er a

person is )ased solel% "pon this se!tion, he ma% )e s"ed onl% on a !a"se of a!tion arisin$ from

an% a!t en"merated in this se!tion.; E*en if donations are !onsidered transa!ted )"siness, the

Plaintiff !annot pla"si)l% !laim that a person donatin$ to A!e has harmed him )% makin$ s"!h a

donation, therefore the !a"se of a!tion does not arise from s"!h alle$ed )"siness.

1%. Se!ond, s"!h donations are not s"ffi!ient to sho' that A!e :re$"larl% does or

soli!its )"siness, en$a$es in an% other persistent !o"rse of !ond"!t in the State or deri*es

s")stantial re*en"e from $oods, food, ser*i!es, or man"fa!t"red prod"!ts "sed or !ons"med in

the State.; =his lan$"a$e is similar to the req"irements !onsidered 'hen a !o"rt m"st de!ide if it

ma% e8er!ise $eneral 4"risdi!tion o*er a defendant "nder the >o"rteenth Amendment’s D"e

Pro!ess Cla"se.

2-. >irst, Plaintiff makes no alle$ation at all that A!e deri*es s")stantial re*en"e from

an% $oods, food, ser*i!es, or man"fa!t"red prod"!ts. ike'ise, it !annot )e said that Plaintiff

alle$ed that A!e re$"larl% does or soli!its )"siness in Mar%land. An% alle$ation that A!e soli!its

and !olle!ts donations from Mar%land residents 1)% )ein$ open to donations from the entire

'orld2 is not s"ffi!ient. :Donations; are not normall% !onsidered :)"siness,; and the Plaintiff

!annot sho' that A!e does so often eno"$h to )e sho'n to ha*e done so :re$"larl%.; >inall%,


9/25

there is no alle$ation at all that A!e :en$a$eId in an% other persistent !o"rse of !ond"!t; in

Mar%land. =his isn’t s"rprisin$, $i*en that the Plaintiff doesn’t e*en kno' 'ho A!e is.

21. A!!ordin$l%, ha*in$ failed to plead 4"risdi!tion "nder Mar%land’s on$ Arm

Stat"te, the Plaintiff has failed to plead an adeq"ate !laim a$ainst A!e in this Co"rt and the

Plaintiff’s motion for dis!o*er% sho"ld not onl% )e denied, )"t the !ase a$ainst A!e sho"ld )e

dismissed for la!k of personal 4"risdi!tion.

172 =he Plaintiff Bas >ailed to Sho' S"!h an Assertion of J"risdi!tion Wo"ld &eConsistent 'ith D"e Pro!ess.

22. =he entiret% of the !ase a$ainst A!e is )ased on 9nternet 'ritin$. 9n fa!t, the $ist

of the !omplaint a$ainst A!e is that A!e alle$edl% harmed the Plaintiff )% 'ritin$ on his 'e)site,

from 'here*er A!e happened to )e. =his is the onl% a!ti*it% that A!e is alle$ed to ha*e done(

pla!e 'ritin$s on the 9nternet !riti!i?in$ the PlaintiffL)"t addressed to the 'orld at lar$eLthat

the Plaintiff doesn’t like. Plaintiff makes no attempt in the Complaint to !laim that A!e has

!ond"!ted )"siness in the state of Mar%land, has real estate in Mar%land or e*en that A!e has

e*er set foot in Mar%land. Be simpl% !laims that A!e has p")lished tortio"sl% false information

on the 9nternet, to the 'orld at lar$e, !a"sin$ Plaintiff "nspe!ified harm.

23. =h"s, a Mar%land state !o"rt !an onl% e8er!ise personal 4"risdi!tion if s"!h

'ritin$s on the 9nternet !onstit"ted s"ffi!ient :minim"m !onta!ts; to 4"stif% this e8er!ise of

4"risdi!tion. Bo'e*er, the >o"rth Cir!"it held that :pla!in$ information on the 9nternet is not

s"ffi!ient )% itself to s")4e!tI that person to personal 4"risdi!tion in ea!h State in 'hi!h the

information is a!!essed.; C!reirst o Md." Inc. v. C!reirst re(n!ncy Ctrs." Inc.,


10/25

State, and 1.


11/25

25. &e!a"se the Plaintiff has not identified A!e, the Plaintiff has not pleaded an% fa!t

'ith respe!t to the ori$inatin$ lo!ation of the alle$ed tortio"s posts and !omments. =herefore,

the Plaintiff has failed to plead that Mar%land !an *alidl% e8er!ise 4"risdi!tion o*er A!e. =h"s,

the Motion to Compel sho"ld )e denied, and A!e sho"ld )e dismissed from this la's"it. >"rther,

in the name of 4"di!ial effi!ien!%, this Co"rt sho"ld !onsider dismissin$ e*er% Defendant )"t

Messrs. Walker 6 and Bo$e- for 'ant of personal 4"risdi!tion.

1ailed to Properl% Alle$e Conspira!% Commit An% =ort inMar%land Potentiall% Allo'in$ Bim to Assert J"risdi!tion.

26. =he Plaintiff is also likel% to assert that A!e is in a !onspira!% to !ommit one of

more torts that 'ere alle$edl% !ommitted in Mar%land. Bo'e*er, as noted in Mr. Walker’s

motion to dismiss and a!!ompan%in$ memorand"m, the Plaintiff makes no non!on!l"sor%

alle$ation that an% s"!h !onspira!% e8ists, and, $i*en that the Plaintiff doesn’t e*en kno' A!e’s

name, one 'o"ld 'onder ho' he !o"ld pretend to kno' for !ertain s"!h a !onspira!% e8ists 1at

least in*ol*in$ A!e2, let alone pro*ide prima fa!ie e*iden!e of it.

27. 9t is 'orth notin$ that this Plaintiff in parti!"lar has a histor% of statin$ !laims for

!ertain 'hen in fa!t he is plainl% onl% $"essin$ a)o"t the fa!ts. On Ma% 3-, 7/3-, the Plaintiff

6 Mr. Walker has 'ai*ed this o)4e!tion.- Mr. Bo$e is a Mar%land resident and, therefore, is o)*io"sl% s")4e!t to Mar%land’s 4"risdi!tion.

Bo'e*er, he has mo*ed to dismiss )ased on the similar, )"t not identi!al, theor% of *en"e. =he Defendants 'ho ha*e )een ser*ed and 'ho file motions to dismiss mi$ht or mi$ht not 'ish

to 'ai*e their o)4e!tions )ased on personal 4"risdi!tion, )"t for the "nser*ed Defendants, this

mi$ht )e a parti!"larl% important !onsideration. >or instan!e, Ms. Na$% had a stroke 'hile

'aitin$ for the last !ase, &im'erlin v. N!tion!l #lo((ers Cl)'" et !l. *I+, No. JB3


12/25

filed an :Appellant’s ead &rief; )efore the >o"rth Cir!"it Co"rt of Appeals in an improper

interlo!"tor% appeal of the partial dismissal of &im'erlin v. N!tion!l #lo((ers Cl)'" et !l. *I+,

No. JB3


13/25

2%. =herefore, the Plaintiff has failed to properl% plead that A!e is s")4e!ted to the

personal 4"risdi!tion of this Co"rt "nder an% re!o$ni?ed theor% of personal 4"risdi!tion. =he

Plaintiff is likel% to plead this is "nfair, that he mi$ht see his !ase dismissed )efore he !an $et

dis!o*er%, )"t that 'as seen as a )oon to freedom of e8pression "nder >irst Amendment in

/incl!ir v. )'e/oc:ed, - >.S"pp.7d 37 1D.D.C. 7//2. 9n /incl!ir , the plaintiff so"$ht to

identif% *ario"s anon%mo"s 9nternet 'riters 'ho had alle$edl% defamed him to dis!o*er if

4"risdi!tion e8isted, and the !o"rt ref"sed to en$a$e in that kind of fishin$ e8pedition, in order to

prote!t the ri$ht to en$a$e in anon%mo"s spee!h. A!!ordin$l%, in order to defend the ri$ht to

en$a$e in anon%mo"s spee!h, the Motion to Compel sho"ld )e denied, and the entire !ase

a$ainst A!e sho"ld )e dismissed.

I*"

THE PLAINTIFF/0 MOTION TO COMPEL 0HOULD BE DENIED BECAU0E THE

PLAINTIFF HA0 NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO CONTACT ACE

3-. On pa$e 3 of the motion, the Plaintiff !orre!tl% states that #rodie holds that 'hen

r"lin$ on s"!h a motion, the first step is to

132 req"ire the plaintiff to "ndertake efforts to notif% the anon%mo"s posters thatthe% are the s")4e!t of a s")poena or appli!ation for an order of dis!los"re,

in!l"din$ postin$ a messa$e of notifi!ation of the identit% dis!o*er% req"est on

the messa$e )oardF

A.7d at 6-0. =he Plaintiff q"otes this passa$e and !laims to ha*e !omplied 'ith that

req"irement, )"t he has not. =he entiret% of his "ns'orn !laim to ha*e !omplied is as follo's(

Plaintiff has informed A!e of Spades of this la's"it in different 'a%s. >irst,

Plaintiff notified #on Coleman, the attorne% 'ho represented A!e in this !ase infederal !o"rt )efore it 'as transferred to this Co"rt of the s"it and asked him to

a!!ept ser*i!e. Se!ond, Plaintiff informed !o"nsel for 9ntermarkets that Plaintiff

'o"ld )e filin$ this motion.

3


14/25

What is noti!ea)l% a)sent from that dis!"ssion is an% attempt to !onta!t A!e, or hisher )lo$

dire!tl%. =he Plaintiff kno's A!e’s email address. As demonstrated in E8hi)it E, the Plaintiff

has personall% emailed A!e in the past, threatenin$ to $et A!e fired from his or her 4o) as he did

Mr. Walker. >"rther, A!e’s )lo$ !ontains a health% !omment se!tion. =h"s, the Plaintiff !o"ld

ha*e posted appropriate le$al noti!e in the !omment se!tion on one of the posts )% A!e, and he

!o"ld ha*e emailed A!e. Be !hose to do neither. 9nstead, 'hat he has alle$ed, in essen!e, is that

he !onta!ted third parties. Be sa%s he hopes the% 'ill inform A!e, )"t there is no $"arantee that

the% 'ill do so. >"rther, the Plaintiff makes a)sol"tel% no effort to e8plain hy he hadn’t 4"st

sent it to A!e. E*en if it 'o"ld )e a "seless $est"re, it isn’t like sendin$ an email or postin$ on

the A!e of Spades )lo$ is diffi!"lt or e8pensi*e. Pi8els are !heap. A!!ordin$l%, the Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel sho"ld )e denied for fail"re to notif% A!e.

*"


PLAINTIFF HA0 NOT 0PECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AND 0ET FORTH THE E;ACT

0TATEMENT0 MADE BY ACE THAT CON0TITUTE ACTIONABLE 0PEECH

31. =he Plaintiff also !orre!tl% states that #rodie held that as the third step in

o)tainin$ dis!o*er% of the identit% of an anon%mo"s 'riter on the 9nternet, the !o"rt m"st

:req"ire the plaintiff to identif% and set forth the e8a!t statements p"rportedl% made )% ea!h

anon%mo"s poster, alle$ed to !onstit"te a!tiona)le spee!h.; A.7d at 6-0. #ather than do

that, ho'e*er, the Plaintiff presented a mess of o"tof!onte8t snippets. Witho"t $reater !onte8t,

this Co"rt !an ha*e no ass"ran!e of their a!t"al meanin$ or e*en if the statements 'ere a)o"t the

Plaintiff. >or instan!e, he !laims that A!e has said that the Plaintiff is :a)"sin$ and !orr"ptin$’

the 4"sti!e s%stem.; Bo'e*er, for all this Co"rt kno's, the a!t"al q"ote mi$ht )e :some sa% Mr.

Him)erlin is !')sin( !nd corr)ptin( the ;)stice system, )"t 9 don’t )elie*e that.; Mr. Walker has

See E8hi)it A to e*%’s Affida*it,

36


15/25

personall% 'itnessed the Plaintiff take the 'ords of othersLin!l"din$ 4"d$esL!ompletel% o"t of

!onte8t and then !laim the% said somethin$ radi!all% different from 'hat the% a!t"all% said. At

times, the Plaintiff has literall% !laimed Mr. Walker said the dire!t opposite of 'hat he said.

32. >or instan!e, atta!hed as E8hi)it > is J"d$e Ba?el’s etter Order of J"l% 7, 7/36.

&% 'a% of )a!k$ro"nd, that !o"rt had p"t in pla!e a Case Mana$ement Order !reatin$ a

pre!learan!e pro!ed"re )efore filin$ most kinds of motions, and the same Plaintiff !laimed that

the Defendants 1in!l"din$ Mr. Walker2 someho' had *iolated this order )% 'ritin$ on the

9nternet. 9n his order, J"d$e Ba?el !hided the Plaintiff, statin$ that :Inot onl% has Plaintiff

misq"oted the lan$"a$e from the ICase Mana$ement Order, )"t Plaintiff has taken this lan$"a$e

o"t of !onte8t.; P. "rther in footnote 7, J"d$e Ba?el in!l"ded this admonishment( :i*en

Plaintiff’s !he!kered past 'ith representations to the Co"rt, Plaintiff is !a"tioned that 'hen he

makes a representation to the Co"rt, it o"$ht to )e a!!"rate, in terms of )oth !ontent and

!onte8t.; i*en this histor%, this Co"rt has no reason to tr"st that the Plaintiff is 32 a!!"ratel%

q"otin$ 'hat A!e said, and 72 pla!in$ it in the appropriate !onte8t.

33. >"rther, se*eral q"oted !omments are a!t"all% tr"e, as determined )% other !o"rts.

>or instan!e, the Plaintiff !omplains that A!e said that the Plaintiff :that he 'as in*ol*ed 'ith

terrorism.; =his Co"rt kno's )% no' that the Plaintiff is a !on*i!ted serial )om)er 'ho

terrori?ed an entire to'n for a 'eek. See &im'erlin v. .inall%, 'hile the *ie' that he is a :th"$,; :a dan$ero"s man; and

:nefario"s; is prote!ted opinion, it is also a perfe!tl% reasona)le !on!l"sion $i*en his !riminal

past. So e*en if 'e ass"me A!e 'rote all of that and the Plaintiff is not takin$ A!e o"t of

!onte8t, these statements !annot possi)l% )e a!tiona)le. =herefore, )e!a"se the Plaintiff has not

3-


16/25

properl% identified and set forth the e8a!t statements p"rportedl% made )% A!e that !onstit"tes

a!tiona)le spee!h, this Co"rt sho"ld den% the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.

*I"

THE PLAINTIFF/0 MOTION TO COMPEL 0HOULD BE DENIED THE PLAINTIFFHA0 FAILED TO MAKE A PRIMA FACIE 0HO.ING THAT ACE/0 0TATEMENT0

ARE ACTIONABLE

34. =he Plaintiff also !orre!tl% q"otes the fo"rth step req"ired )% #rodie !o"rt as

statin$ that 'hen !onfronted 'ith a motion to dis!o*er the identit% of anon%mo"s 'riters on the

9nternet, this Co"rt m"st :determine 'hether the !omplaint has set forth a prima fa!ie

defamation per se or per q"od a!tion a$ainst the anon%mo"s posters.; A.7d at 6-0. On!e

a$ain, the Plaintiff fails to !arr% the )"rden he has a!!"ratel% q"oted. =he pro)lem here is that

this passa$e !annot )e applied as is to the present !ase )e!a"se, as far as A!e is !on!erned, this is

not ! de!m!tion c!se.

35. =he Plaintiff has apparentl% for$otten that he has not s"ed A!e for defamation.

Be has s"ed A!e for >alse i$ht, 9nterferen!e 'ith Prospe!ti*e E!onomi! Ad*anta$e, 9ntentional

9nfli!tion of Emotional Distress and the nontort of !onspira!%.3/ o$i!all%, this Co"rt sho"ld

di*er$e from the #rodie standard to req"ire the Plaintiff to pro*ide prima fa!e e*iden!e of the

!laims he did make. Bo'e*er, )e!a"se he fo!"sed almost e8!l"si*el% on a !a"se of a!tion he did

not s"e "nder, the Plaintiff has "tterl% failed to e*en address the elements of the !a"ses of a!tion

he alle$ed a$ainst A!e.

=his is most likel% to )e )e!a"se Mar%land’s stat"te of limitations for defamation is onl% for

one %ear. /ee MD CODE Cts. + J"d. Pro!. -3/ 1:An a!tion for assa"lt, li)el, or slander shall

)e filed 'ithin one %ear from the date it a!!r"es.;23/ Plaintiff also !laims on pa$e t'o that he has s"ed A!e for :defamation, false li$ht, !onspira!%,

in*asion of pri*a!%, and intentional infli!tion of emotional distress.; 9f he is attemptin$ to

s"$$est he is also s"in$ A!e for in*asion of pri*a!% )% Misappropriation of his Name, 9ntr"sion

into Se!l"sion, and @nreasona)le P")li!it% for Pri*ate >a!ts, this Co"rt sho"ld note that he onl%

asserts these !a"ses of a!tion a$ainst Defendants Walker, >re%, Ak)ar, Dan &a!ker and D&

Capital Strate$ies.

3


17/25

36. =he Plaintiff also makes a stran$e ar$"ment that A!e’s :statements on the 9nternet

for the entire 'orld to see; 1Motion to Compel, p. 62, someho' *iolated :60 @SC 77"rther, the Plaintiff ne*er pled

a *iolation of 77< in his !omplaint, and he has offered no !itation to s"$$est that there is a

pri*ate !a"se of a!tion "nder 77< in an% !ase.

30


18/25

37. Another f"ndamental error in the Motion to Compel is that he has presented

a)sol"tel% no e*iden!e to this Co"rt. As the #rodie !o"rt stated(

'e )elie*e that a test req"irin$ noti!e and opport"nit% to )e heard, !o"pled 'ith a

sho'in$ of a prima fa!ie !ase and the appli!ation of a )alan!in$ testLs"!h as thestandard set forth in endrite =Int’l" Inc. v. >ohn oe No. 3, ramers !o"ld ha*e

ima$ined.; C? v. 0eno, .S"pp.7d 60


19/25

!on*i!ted of per4"r% ma% not testif%.; =his Plaintiff has )een !on*i!ted of per4"r%,33 and

therefore he not !ompetent to testif% "nder 3/6.

3%. When 3/6 has )een )ro"$ht "p in past liti$ation, the Plaintiff has made a

n"m)er of ar$"ments in opposition to the appli!ation of this stat"te. 37 >irst, he has !laimed that

the 'ords :ma% not; are permissi*e. Bo'e*er, the Mar%land Assem)l% has "sed the e8a!t same

terminolo$% in other stat"tes 'hen it 'as !learl% a mandator% ne$ati*e. >or instan!e, MD CODE

Cts. + J"d. Pro!.3/0 states that :Ia person ma% not )e !ompelled to testif% in *iolation of his

pri*ile$e a$ainst selfin!rimination.; Will the Plaintiff ar$"e that this Co"rt !an !ompel s"!h

testimon% if it !hoosesR One 'o"ld think he 'o"ldn’t, if onl% o"t of selfinterest.

3<

ike'ise,

the se!tion prote!tin$ attorne%!lient pri*ile$e 13/2 and priestpenitent pri*ile$e 13332

"se the same 'ords :ma% not.; =hese other stat"tes are not "nderstood to )e permissi*e, and

3/6 sho"ld )e interpreted the same 'a%.

33 /ee, e.( ., &im'erlin v. e!lt , 37 >.S"pp.7d 60, 6/ n. 1D. Md 32 1:Petitioner possessed

t'o -/po"nd )o8es of =o*e8 7// d%namite 'hile on pro)ation from a 30< felon% !on*i!tionfor per4"r%. Part of the d%namite 'as "sed to )last holes in the earth to !onstr"!t an "nder$ro"nd

stora$e *a"lt, 'hile some of the d%namite 'as "sed in petitionerKs ne8t offense;2 and &im'erlin

v. . S"pp. 607, 67 1W.D. =enn. 372 1:Ithe !on*i!tions in q"estion are a 4"*enile

!on*i!tion for sellin$ !ontrolled s")stan!es and a s")seq"ent !on*i!tion shortl% after his 3th

)irthda% for per4"r% )efore the $rand 4"r% relati*e to the in*ol*ement of others in the 4"*enile

dr"$ offense;2.37 =he Plaintiff has repeatedl% and falsel% !laimed that )oth J"d$e Jordan and J"d$e Johnson

1no' retired2 ref"sed to appl% the r"le. 9n fa!t, J"d$e Eri! Johnson is the onl% 4"d$e to ha*e

r"led in the Plaintiff’s fa*or on this point to the )est of Mr. Walker’s kno'led$e. Jordan didn’t

r"le one 'a% or the other, 'hile J"d$e &"rrell and J"d$e Crei$hton 1no' retired2, r"led he !o"ld

not testif%, as 'ell as J"d$e Williams of the Mont$omer% Co"nt% Distri!t Co"rt, and J"d$e

Stansfield of the Carroll Co"nt% Cir!"it Co"rt. Mr. Walker kno's of no other 4"d$es 'ho r"led

on this iss"e one 'a% or the other.3


20/25

4-. Se!ond the Plaintiff has !laimed that it 'o"ld )e "nfair and th"s "n!onstit"tional

to appl% 3/6 to him. &"t Mar%land Co"rts ha*e )een "tterl% "ns%mpatheti! e*en to !riminal

defendants )"rdened )% this stat"te. =his is tr"e e*en 'hen the !riminal defendant is seekin$ the

testimon% of third parties 'ho had )een !on*i!ted of per4"r%. 9n other 'ords, e*en 'hen a

person is on trial 'ith her freedom in the )alan!e, and it is not the defendant’s fa"lt that the

testimon% had )een e8!l"ded, the stat"te has still )een applied.

41. >or instan!e, in /t!te v. !th!m, 37 Md.App. -0, - A.7d / 1Md.App., 7//2,

a defendant so"$ht to o*ert"rn his !on*i!tion )ased on ineffe!ti*e assistan!e of !o"nsel and

so"$ht that attorne%’s testimon% to s"pport his !laim. Bo'e*er, e*en tho"$h Mr. atham’s

freedom 'as on the line, and e*en tho"$h he had not himself )een !on*i!ted of per4"r%, his

attorne%’s testimon% 'as e8!l"ded "nder this stat"te.

42. =he most e8treme appli!ation of this prin!iple, ho'e*er, !omes onl% three %ears

a$o in Col:ley v. /t!te, 7/6 Md.App. -


21/25

3/6 )e!a"se of an as applied !hallen$e to its !onstit"tionalit%, it 'as there. 9nstead, the !o"rt

ref"sed to do so.

43. =he reason 'h% this stat"te applies e*en in these e8treme !ir!"mstan!es isn’t to

p"nish the per4"rer, )"t to prote!t the !o"rts from the testimon% of a person 'hose dishonest

!ond"!t 'as se*ere eno"$h to moti*ate prose!"tors to $o to the tro")le to !on*i!t him or her of

per4"r%. As 'ritten in 9o)rie v. /t!te(

A !on*i!ted per4"rer is in!ompetent as a 'itness in Mar%land. Md. Cts. + J"d.Pro!. Code Ann. 3/6 13/2. =he disq"alifi!ation as a 'itness is $enerall%

deemed to ser*e the !ollateral p"rpose of )arrin$ e*iden!e tho"$ht not to )e

entitled to !reden!e. 9t is not looked "pon as an additional penalt% imposed "pon

the per4"rer himself #. Perkins, Criminal a' 6-6 7d ed. 32.

-< Md.App. 7, 6 n. 77, 6-7 A.7d 66/ 1Md.App., 372.

44. @nlike the !riminal defendants in Col:ley and !th!m, the Plaintiff is not a

defendant on trial for his freedom. Be does not seek this testimon% as a shield to defend himself

a$ainst in!ar!eration. 9nstead, he 'ishes to "se his "nrelia)le 'ord as a s'ord to pier!e A!e’s

ri$ht to anon%mo"s spee!h. Nor !an he !laim that he is s"fferin$ the !onseq"en!es of a third

part%’s mis!ond"!t as the !riminal defendants in Col:ley and !th!m did. 9f the Plaintiff 'anted

to preser*e his ri$ht to testif% in Mar%land, he sho"ldn’t ha*e per4"red himself. =h"s, e*en if

this Co"rt mi$ht 'onder if the stat"te mi$ht )e "n!onstit"tional as applied in a !ase similar to

Col:ley and !th!m, it 'o"ld not )e "n!onstit"tional as applied here. 9ndeed, 'ith the Plaintiff

ha*in$ )een !a"$ht re!entl% for$in$ and alterin$ do!"ments, he is the :poster )o%; for this

stat"te. =his Co"rt literall% !an’t tr"st an%thin$ the Plaintiff sa%s.

45. =herefore, the Plaintiff has failed to esta)lish a prima fa!ie !ase, )e!a"se 32 he

has presented no e*iden!e, and 72 his 'ord !annot )e !onsidered to )e e*iden!e. >or this reason

alone, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel o"$ht to )e denied.

73


22/25

*II"


BALANCE OF INTERE0T0 FA*OR0 ACE/0 FREEDOM OF 0PEECH

46. >inall%, the #rodie !o"rt held that this Co"rt m"st still :)alan!e the anon%mo"s

poster’s >irst Amendment ri$ht of free spee!h a$ainst the stren$th of the prima fa!ie !ase of

defamation presented )% the plaintiff and the ne!essit% for dis!los"re of the anon%mo"s

defendant’s identit%, prior to orderin$ dis!los"re.; A.7d at 6-0. 9n other 'ords, e*en if

e*er%thin$ else is on the Plaintiff’s side, this Co"rt sho"ld still de!ide to prote!t A!e’s identit% if

it feels the threat to A!e’s ri$ht to free spee!h o"t'ei$hs the Plaintiff’s ri$hts.

47. Atta!hed as E8hi)it E is the motion of Pa"l Allen e*% and Da*id #o!ah, pro

)ono !o"nsel from P")li! Citi?en iti$ation ro"p and the Mar%land )ran!h of the AC@

respe!ti*el%, as filed in &im'erlin v. N!tion!l #lo((ers Cl)'" et !l. *I+, No. JB3


23/25

A!e is, Mr. Walker admires him or her for )ein$ 'illin$ to speak "p and risk fa!in$ the same

kind of a)"se at the Plaintiff’s hands. Bo'e*er, not e*er% person has s"!h !o"ra$e, and if this

Co"rt does not prote!t A!e’s ri$ht to anon%mit%, tho"sands of other *oi!es 'ill )e silen!ed )%

fear of the Plaintiff. =o a*oid this !hillin$ effe!t, therefore, this Co"rt sho"ld den% the Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel.

*III"


PLAINTIFF HA0 REFU0ED TO 0ER*E OTHER DEFENDANT0

4$. >inall%, on!e a$ain, 'e are fa!ed 'ith a sit"ation 'here this Plaintiff has failed to

ser*e Mr. Walker 'ith ne!essar% pleadin$s. 9ndeed, his !ertifi!ate of ser*i!e states e8pli!itl% that

he has onl% ser*ed 9ntermarkets.36 Mr. Walker has raised this iss"e pre*io"sl% 1see Dkt. No. 2,

and here)% rene's his req"est that the Plaintiff fa!e !onseq"en!es for his !ontin"al fail"re to

pro*ide ser*i!e of pro!ess. =his Co"rt has alread% de!lared that it 'o"ld !onsider san!tions for

the Plaintiff’s fail"re to appear at the J"l% 30, 7/3-, S!hed"lin$ Bearin$ to !ompensate

Defendants for their in!on*enien!e. Mr. Walker seeks !ompensation for his in!on*enien!e as

'ell and a remed% desi$ned to address the Plaintiff’s !hroni! fail"re to pro*ide ser*i!e of

pro!ess.3-

CONCLU0ION

4%. =he Plaintiff sho"ld not )e allo'ed to !ompel 9ntermarkets to dis!lose the identit%

of A!e of Spades, either the )lo$$er or the )lo$. >irst, this Co"rt has alread% sta%ed dis!o*er%,

and the Plaintiff has presented no ar$"ment 'hatsoe*er to re!onsider its r"lin$. Se!ond, a

36 =his Plaintiff also failed to ser*e Mr. Walker 'ith his motion for alternate ser*i!e 1Dkt. No.


24/25

motion to !ompel is premat"re 'hen 9ntermarkets has not ref"sed to !ompl% 'ith an% s")poena.

=hird, the Plaintiff’s Complaint has stated a !laim a$ainst A!e for 'hi!h relief !an )e $ranted.

9ndeed, he has not e*en alle$ed that :A!e of Spades, the &lo$; is a le$al entit% that !an s"e or )e

s"ed in its o'n name. >o"rth, the Plaintiff has failed to properl% alle$e that this Co"rt !an

e8er!ise personal 4"risdi!tion o*er A!e 1the )lo$$er2. =hese t'o reasons not onl% 4"stif% a denial

of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, )"t it also 4"stifies dismissin$ A!e from this !ase for la!k of

personal 4"risdi!tion. >"rther, in the name of 4"di!ial e!onom%, this Co"rt sho"ld !onsider

dismissin$ e*er% Defendant other than Walker and Bo$e for la!k of personal 4"risdi!tion, and

Mr. Walker rene's his !laim that e*er% Defendant sho"ld )e dismissed for fail"re to state a

!laim.

5-. 9n addition to those failin$s, there are fi*e more reasons to den% the Motion to

Compel. >irst, the Plaintiff has failed to a!t"all% !onta!t A!e as req"ired to )% #rodie. Se!ond,

he has not spe!ifi!all% identified and set forth the statements made )% A!e that !onstit"tes

a!tiona)le spee!h. =hird, he has not presented s"ffi!ient e*iden!e to make o"t a prima fa!ie !ase

that A!e’s spee!h is a!tiona)leF indeed, he seems to ha*e for$otten 'hat he is s"in$ A!e for and

has failed to pro*ide one s!intilla of e*iden!e to s"pport an% !a"se of a!tion a$ainst A!e. >o"rth,

the )alan!e of interests fa*ors A!e. >inall%, this Co"rt sho"ld den% the motion )ased on a la!k of

ser*i!e of pro!ess. Ea!h of these reasons alone is s"ffi!ient to 4"stif% denial of the Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel, and Mr. Walker has presented nine of them.

76


25/25

WBE#E>O#E, )ased on the fore$oin$, Defendant Walker respe!tf"ll% req"ests that this Co"rt

den% the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, that it dismiss this s"it a$ainst :A!e of Spades, the )lo$,;

:A!e of Spades, the )lo$$er,; and all other defendants, either for la!k of personal 4"risdi!tion or

for fail"re to state a !laim. >"rther, Mr. Walker req"ests that this Co"rt san!tion the Plaintiff for

fail"re to pro*ide ser*i!e 1a$ain2.

Monda%, J"l% 70, 7/3- #espe!tf"ll% s")mitted,

Aaron J. Walker, Esq.5a &ar 67

Ireda!ted

Manassas, 5ir$inia 7/3/AaronJW07T$mail.!om

Ireda!ted

1no fa82

7-

opp. to discovery intermarkets (redaction)

Documents