Here’s another factual error in one of The Dread Pirate Kimberlin’s lawsuits. In Paragraph 30 of his Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit filed in Maryland, TDPK assets that I have engaged in “stalking” him.
No, I haven’t stalked Brett Kimberlin. At least not as defined by Maryland’s stalking statute.
Md. CRIMINAL LAW § 3-802 (2013)
§ 3-802. Stalking
(a) “Stalking” defined. — In this section, “stalking” means a malicious course of conduct that includes approaching or pursuing another where the person intends to place or knows or reasonably should have known the conduct would place another in reasonable fear:
(1) (i) of serious bodily injury;
(ii) of an assault in any degree;
(iii) of rape or sexual offense as defined by §§ 3-303 through 3-308 of this title or attempted rape or sexual offense in any degree;
(iv) of false imprisonment; or
(v) of death; or
(2) that a third person likely will suffer any of the acts listed in item (1) of this subsection.
(b) Applicability. — The provisions of this section do not apply to conduct that is:
(1) performed to ensure compliance with a court order;
(2) performed to carry out a specific lawful commercial purpose; or
(3) authorized, required, or protected by local, State, or federal law.
(c) Prohibited. — A person may not engage in stalking.
(d) Penalty. — A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $ 5,000 or both.
(e) Sentence. — A sentence imposed under this section may be separate from and consecutive to or concurrent with a sentence for any other crime based on the acts establishing a violation of this section.
HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 27, § 124(a)(1), (3), (b)-(d); 2002, ch. 26, § 2; 2003, ch. 313; 2004, ch. 25; 2005, ch. 25, § 1; 2011, ch. 65.
Pretend for a moment that attending court hearings and trials that are open to the public for the purpose of news gathering constitutes “a malicious course of conduct that includes approaching or pursuing another.” How would my mere attendance at those events cause TDPK to fear for his life or fear assault, bodily injury or rape or fear that he would be falsely imprisoned? But suppose that one could imagine a scenario where he could reasonably have such fear. § 3-802(b)(2) exempts activities protected by law. The last time I checked, the First Amendment is still the law of the land, and it still protects news gathering.
Further, he offers no explanation of how my writing about what happened in those hearings and trials placed him in any reasonable fear of death, assault, bodily injury, rape, or false imprisonment.
Of course, I haven’t engaged in approaching or pursuing TDPK. The only times that I have even seen him have been in courthouse or their immediate vicinity (e.g., parking lot or front steps). I can only remember speaking with him three times. Once, when he cross examined me. Again, when he called me as a witness in a second case. And finally, to say “Thank you,” when he handed me the first version of his Kimberlin v. The Universe, et al. federal RICO suit.
I won’t go into the extensive evidence of Brett Kimberlin’s stalking of other because it may relate to various defendants’ defenses and/or counterclaims to his lawsuits, but his factual errors in his complaints lend credence to the suggestion that Kimberlin is engaging in an “accuse the accuser” strategy.