Brett Kimblerlin v. Seth Allen Transcript 1.9.12 (OCR)

8/2/2019 Brett Kimblerlin v. Seth Allen Transcript 1.9.12 (OCR)

1/24

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210

Germantown, MD 20874

(301) 881-3344

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------x

:

KIMBERLIN, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : Civil No. 339254

:

ANONYMOUS CYBER STALKER, :

et al., :

:

Defendants. :

:------------------------------x

HEARING

Rockville, Maryland January 9, 201


2/24

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------x

:

KIMBERLIN, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : Civil No. 339254

:

ANONYMOUS CYBER STALKER, :

et al., :

:

Defendants. :

:

------------------------------x

Rockville, Maryland

January 9, 2012

WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled

matter commenced

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE NELSON W. RUPP, JR., JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

BRETT KIMBERLIN, Pro Se

(No address provided)

FOR THE DEFENDANT, AARON WORTHING:

AARON WALKER, Pro Se

(No address provided)


3/24

I N D E X

Page

Judge's Ruling 23


4/24

am 4

P R O C E E D I N G S1

THE COURT: Civil 339254, Kimberlin versus Seth2

Allen. And you are?3

MR. KIMBERLIN: I'm Brett Kimberlin.4

THE COURT: All right.5

MR. WALKER: My name is Aaron Walker. I am the6

blogger known as Aaron Worthing. And I have an emergency7

motion against Mr. Kimberlin for his gross misconduct in this8

case, and I'd like to be heard. I know it's unusual.9

THE COURT: It's not here on your proceeding.10

MR. WALKER: I understand, Your Honor.11

THE COURT: So I'm not going to hear it.12

MR. WALKER: Your Honor, he filed an improper motion13

before this Court on Friday. I had no notice until Saturday14

morning that he had done that. He has, in a blatant attempt t15

stalk and oppress me, he has put --16

THE COURT: Hold it. Hold it.17

MR. WALKER: Yes. I'm sorry.18

THE COURT: First off, you don't have any right to b19

saying anything. And you don't have a right to be laughing.20

There's a motion to withdraw as moot plaintiff's motion to21

compel seeking identity of Aaron Worthing.22

MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes.23

THE COURT: And then there's a, plaintiff's response24

to Aaron Worthing's motion to quash. And you're Mr. Worthing?25


5/24

am 5

MR. WALKER: Well, I'm Aaron Walker, and I blog as1

Mr. Worthing, that's correct.2

THE COURT: Are you requiring that he come to court3

today?4

MR. KIMBERLIN: Judge, initially I, he's an anonymou5

blogger who's been involved with the stalker.6

THE COURT: But why are you, why is he here?7

MR. KIMBERLIN: And so, I didn't ask him to be here.8

He just foisted himself on this hearing.9

THE COURT: Well, he says he's been summonsed.10

MR. KIMBERLIN: No.11

MR. WALKER: Well, no, no, no.12

MR. KIMBERLIN: He wasn't summonsed.13

MR. WALKER: If I may explain, Your Honor.14

THE COURT: All right.15

MR. WALKER: He did actually initially ask me to16

testify today in his initial correspondence with me. If he's17

not interested in my testimony today, then I would ask why he18

has subpoenaed this Court in order to obtain my identity.19

MR. KIMBERLIN: I withdrew that.20

THE COURT: It's been withdrawn.21

MR. WALKER: Yes. But I understand, but why did he22

do that in the first place?23

THE COURT: Well, it's been withdrawn, so it's, he24

says it's withdrawn. It's moot.25


6/24

am 6

MR. WALKER: But Your Honor, if you look at what he1

has filed today, all he had to do in order to file that motion2

was to tell the Court that he obtained my information. He did3

not have to even say my name. Instead, in this public document4

now, he has put my name, he has put my home address, he has put5

my birth date, he has put the high school I went to. He put6

the fact that I dropped out of high school in this. He put th7

fact that I received a GED. He put the fact that I went to th8

University of North Texas. He went and put in the fact that I9

sued the law school admissions council. He put in the fact10

that I was admitted to Yale Law School and graduated in the11

class of 2002. He put down my current job with my current12

employer and their address as well.13

His intent in doing this was so that it becomes a14

public record so that him and his friends can put this out into15

the public so they can stalk and harass me. It is plain on th16

face of this. And I would ask Your Honor to swear him in and17

ask why he put all this unnecessary information in this, in18

this filing.19

THE COURT: Well, it's been withdrawn as moot.20

MR. WALKER: Well, I'm talking about the motion to21

withdraw itself.22

THE COURT: Well, it's done. It's no longer in23

effect.24

MR. WALKER: But this is a public document. And his25


7/24

am 7

friends will then take this public document, his motion to1

withdraw as moved, and they will put it out, and then put out2

all of my information.3

THE COURT: Are you asking that this be sealed?4

MR. WALKER: I would like this to be sealed. I woul5

like --6

THE COURT: Any objection to sealing it, Mr.7

Kimberlin?8

MR. KIMBERLIN: Judge, this --9

THE COURT: Say yes or no.10

MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, I object.11

THE COURT: Why?12

MR. KIMBERLIN: Why?13

THE COURT: Yes, why. Why should all of this be a14

matter of public record?15

MR. KIMBERLIN: This man has engaged in stalking wit16

the defendant in this case.17

THE COURT: Well, there's no order against him in18

this case.19

MR. KIMBERLIN: No, there's no order against him.20

But he --21

THE COURT: So why is he even a part of this case?22

MR. KIMBERLIN: He did it anonymously. Initially, I23

wanted to call him as a witness. And then when I filed the24

motions to call him as a witness, he began trying the case in,25


8/24

am 8

on his blog. He filed every, he posted every motion on his1

blog. And he kept accusing me of all kinds of terrible things2

on his blog. And he ridiculed me. He taunted me. He3

threatened me. He had people posting on his blog that I was a4

terrorist and a pedophile and all this other stuff.5

And he engaged in unethical behavior. He said that6

he represented the defendant in this case as an anonymous7

person. He can't, a lawyer cannot represent someone as an8

anonymous person. He asked to be identified. I mean, he went9

on his blog and said I am representing, I entered into an10

attorney-client privilege relationship with Seth Allen as Aaron11

Worthing. And he's not even a lawyer in this jurisdiction. H12

lives in Virginia. He can't represent somebody as a fake13

person, in a pseudonym. I mean, that's -- and so he put14

himself out there to be identified.15

I mean, if he's a lawyer, fine. I have a right to16

determine if he's a lawyer. He can't say that he's anonymous17

and he's representing Seth Allen. It just, it didn't make18

sense. And so I said, well, I need to find out who this guy19

is. If he's saying he represents somebody in a case against20

me, then I need to be able to identify him. And so I21

identified him. And I didn't want him to come out and say --22

the reason I put all that information in the document was23

because Mr. Worthing has called me a liar over and over and24

over. And I wanted to, everybody to know --25


9/24

am 9

THE COURT: Why is this even in the court? This is1

incredible to me.2

MR. KIMBERLIN: I know. It's really incredible.3

THE COURT: No. I mean, the whole thing is4

incredible. I'm going to, there's a motion that was, to quash5

that was filed on behalf of, it was filed originally by --6

MR. WALKER: If you're looking, it's Seth Allen, I7

suspect.8

THE COURT: No. It was filed by Elizabeth --9

MR. KIMBERLIN: Kingsley.10

THE COURT: -- Kingsley.11

MR. KIMBERLIN: Yeah.12

MR. WALKER: Oh, that would be the attorney who13

represented me in the past.14

THE COURT: And she filed a motion to file15

anonymously or to file under seal.16

MR. KIMBERLIN: Right.17

THE COURT: And she's filed that. And I'm going to18

grant the request to file this anonymously or under seal.19

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.20

THE COURT: And I'll grant the request to seal the21

information that's contained at Docket Entry 114, which is the22

motion to withdraw as moot.23

All right. Sir, that concludes your --24

MR. WALKER: Actually, I would like a little more25


10/24

am 10

relief, if you don't mind me taking a moment.1

THE COURT: That's it. No. I'm done. You're done.2

MR. WALKER: All right. Thank you, Your Honor.3

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kimberlin, I received a4

phone call, well, actually, my secretary received a phone call5

from Mr. Allen --6


THE COURT: -- with a 508 area code number --8


THE COURT: -- requesting that he be allowed to10

participate by telephone. And he made representations that he11

had submitted written requests to participate by telephone. I12

checked with the clerk's office. I don't see any written13

requests having been made.14

But I've reviewed Docket Entry Nos. 99 and 100, which15

are your motions for contempt of court, against Mr. Allen. An16

I have to tell you I'm a little puzzled as to what it is you're17

claiming that he's done that constitutes contempt of court.18

MR. KIMBERLIN: All right. I'll be happy to go into19

that. Are we going to have Mr. Allen on the phone or --20

THE COURT: No.21

MR. KIMBERLIN: So I proceed. Okay.22

THE COURT: I want to know why you think he should b23

held in contempt of court.24

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I have a memorandum. Can I25


11/24

am 11

just walk you through it? Can I hand you a copy of it?1

THE COURT: Well, if you can't tell me just by2

looking at it --3

MR. KIMBERLIN: No. I can tell you.4

THE COURT: I mean --5

MR. KIMBERLIN: I can certainly --6

THE COURT: -- let me see what you have.7

MR. KIMBERLIN: I can certainly tell you.8

THE COURT: And you're submitting today a 23-page9

memorandum. And, you know, these cases are set for hearings.10

MR. KIMBERLIN: I'm just going to walk you through11

it, Judge. I mean, I just wanted you to have this in front of12

you.13

THE COURT: Just give me the bottom line.14

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay. The --15

THE COURT: Why do you think he should be held in16

contempt of court? And I don't want to hear anything about17

Judge Jordan. It has nothing to do with what's before me.18

MR. KIMBERLIN: With what?19

THE COURT: This has nothing to do with what's befor20

me. Judge Jordan isn't the subject of the order that you're21

seeking contempt of court.22

MR. KIMBERLIN: No, I know.23

THE COURT: So what is it that you think that he's24

done?25


12/24

am 12

MR. KIMBERLIN: There's two things. Judge Jordan1

issued an order on November 14th at a damages hearing where he2

issued a permanent injunction against Mr. Allen, prohibiting3

him from defaming me or --4

THE COURT: Right. I saw that.5

MR. KIMBERLIN: -- interfering with my business.6

THE COURT: I saw the order.7

MR. KIMBERLIN: And so Mr. Allen kept telling the8

judge at the time that he was done blogging about me, that he9

was not going to say anything more about me.10

THE COURT: Well, the order says he's to enjoin11

permanently from engaging in tortious conduct constituting12

defamation of or interference with business relations of the13

plaintiff, Brett Kimberlin.14

MR. KIMBERLIN: Right. Uh-huh. And so --15

THE COURT: So what is it that he's done that leads16

you to believe he's violated this order?17

MR. KIMBERLIN: And, you know, at the time, Judge18

Jordan was very clear to him. He said I want you to leave19

this man alone. I want you to quit blogging about him. I wan20

you to quit talking about him. And I can read you from the21

transcript, if you want. It's on page 7.22

THE COURT: It's one thing to say that --23

MR. KIMBERLIN: No.24

THE COURT: -- but this is what's ordered here.25


13/24

am 13

MR. KIMBERLIN: I know, but I --1

THE COURT: Defamation, interference of business2

relations.3


THE COURT: And to talk about somebody doesn't5

constitution defamation.6

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, it's, he's not just talking7

about me. He's --8

THE COURT: Well, tell me what he's done that you9

believe constitutes a violation of this court order.10

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, first of all, in August, August11

8th, Judge Rubin entered a preliminary injunction --12

THE COURT: Well, this is a November 14 order.13

MR. KIMBERLIN: I understand.14

THE COURT: This isn't Judge Rubin's order.15

MR. KIMBERLIN: I understand, but there was a16

preliminary injunction in this case requiring, ordering Mr.17

Allen to delete a number of blog posts that he had made on his18

blog. And Mr. Allen refused to do so, so Google actually19

deleted those blog posts.20

So as soon as the hearing was over here on November21

14th, Mr. Allen then reposted those blog posts, and that is the22

subject of the permanent injunction. He said, I had a23

preliminary injunction already finding that these blog posts24

were defamatory in August. Judge Jordan made this injunction25


14/24

am 14

permanent and prohibited him from, from doing so in the future1

And he told him at the hearing, he said, if you write about2

Mr. Kimberlin, you do so at your peril and you can be in front3

of the court on contempt. So he was told explicitly not to4

blog about me, not to defame me, not to repost these, these5

things that he had already posted.6

So since then, he's, I mean, I can just show you the7

different posts here. It's literally hundreds of pages of8

posts. I mean, he didn't just repost what he had been ordered9

to take down in August in a preliminary injunction, he went on10

and on. I mean, and not only that, he attacked the judge in11

the case, I mean, Judge Jordan. He called him the worst names12

you could possibly imagine.13

And this morning, he's blogged about you, Your Honor14

He's called you names in two posts this morning. I mean, of15

course, it's no big deal, but it just shows that there's16

contempt here. And he's contemptuous of the Court's order. H17

has, you know, totally ignored the Court's admonition, both18

during the hearing and afterwards. He's posted and posted and19

posted. He's reposted. And, you know, he calls me all kinds20

of things. He calls me a terrorist. He calls me a cyber21

smearer. He calls me a pedophile. He calls me a perjurer.22

THE COURT: Well, I've read the --23

MR. KIMBERLIN: I mean, he --24

THE COURT: -- 20 items that you've submitted in you25


15/24

am 15

memorandum.1


MR. WALKER: Well, Your Honor, if I may, I'm sorry t3

break in a second time.4

THE COURT: You know, I had a sheriff up here,5

because I didn't think one would be needed. I'm about to get 6

sheriff to escort you out of the courtroom.7

MR. WALKER: I don't understand --8

THE COURT: You're not breaking in. Sit down.9

MR. WALKER: I felt a need to explain something to10

the Court, if I could.11

THE COURT: All right. I've got the 20 items here.12

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I can show you these. I mean,13

this is --14

THE COURT: What are those?15

MR. KIMBERLIN: This is the stuff that he's posting16

on his blog.17

THE COURT: Well, what's currently posted?18

MR. KIMBERLIN: This is all stuff since November 14t19

that he's posted.20

THE COURT: What's currently posted as of today?21

MR. KIMBERLIN: Oh, today about you?22

THE COURT: No, I don't care. I'm not interested23

about me. What is he --24

MR. KIMBERLIN: I'm saying all this is posted on his25


16/24

am 16

blog.1

THE COURT: Didn't he take all of that down?2

MR. KIMBERLIN: No. Google took it down in August.3

And as soon as the judge, he got back after the November 14th4

hearing, he reposted it and posted more stuff. I mean, it's5

like I said, this is all since November 14th, this stuff. And6

it's all about my business, and it's all about me. I mean, I7

was arrested 32 years ago on a case. I got out of jail. I di8

my time. I run two non-profits in this, in this wonderful cit9

working with kids and congress members and community leaders.10

And you know, I have two kids and a wife. And this guy will11

not leave me alone. He wants to post stuff that happened 3212

years ago. You know, he dug up 32-year-old mug shots of me13

that I had never even seen before, that had never been posted.14

THE COURT: Well, that doesn't constitute defamation15

It's all true.16

MR. KIMBERLIN: It's not true.17

THE COURT: What, that you were arrested?18

MR. KIMBERLIN: I'm not a terrorist. I'm not a19

terrorist. I'm not a pedophile. I mean, that's not true.20

You know, and the other thing is, you know, my21

original case had to do with not just defamation. It had to d22

with interference with business. What he's doing in this is t23

interfere with my business. He posts this on the blog to24

interfere. And we had a big hearing about this at the damages25


17/24

am 17

hearing. And the judge, Judge Jordan heard over and over, you1

know, how, what his goal is --2

THE COURT: And you have there what's currently on3

the, what currently exists, is that correct?4

MR. KIMBERLIN: Like I said, this is all since5

November 14th.6

THE COURT: But that's currently what's on his --7

MR. KIMBERLIN: That's what on his blog, yeah.8

THE COURT: As of right now?9

MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes. And I have a list of it --10

THE COURT: All right. Let me see it.11

MR. KIMBERLIN: You want to see it? Okay.12

THE COURT: All right. This one is dated November13

23rd. I don't see anything in here that would constitute --14

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I mean --15

THE COURT: -- defamation.16

MR. KIMBERLIN: -- there's a lot of stuff in there,17

so I could certainly find it, you know. But what does is he18

mixes, he posts something, and then he'll say, oh, and then19

Kimberlin, the speedway bomber, the terrorist, the perjurer,20

and the pedophile did this or that. And you know, what he doe21

is he tries to do this so that he can get it on Google or get22

it on the search engines, and then people who might want to23

donate to my business, which is what Judge Jordan heard the24

whole case about, won't want to help me, won't want to donate25


18/24

am 18

to my non-profits. And he does this intentionally to harm my1

business. And Judge Jordan was very explicit, you know, don't2

mess with this guy anymore. Leave him alone. And he doesn't3

leave me alone. I mean, he's even threatened Judge Jordan.4

And like I say, it's not true, what he says is not5

true. I'm not a hoaxster. I'm not a fraudster. That's what6

he calls me. I'm a hoaxster. I'm a fraudster. I'm a con man7

all this stuff. You know, our non-profits are sanctioned by8

Guide Star, Network for Good, the Secretary of State of9

Maryland, the Better Business Bureau. We have not had any10

problems with anything, except Mr. Allen. Only in his mind am11

I a fraudster or a hoaxster or a conman and all these other12

things.13

And he'll do a long post that you're reading, and14

then all of a sudden in the middle of it, you'll see, you know15

Kimberlin this, Kimberlin and his partner, Brad Friedman, are16

hoaxsters, fraudsters. And he does this to hurt my business17

and to harass me. And the original complaint charged18

harassment. That's what this man is doing.19

THE COURT: All right. I've read the one dated20

November 16, 2011, and I don't see anything in there that would21

constitute defamation.22

MR. KIMBERLIN: Judge, it's not just defamation.23

It's interference with my business. That's what Judge Jordan24

was very clear about.25


19/24

am 19

And he, you know, he's reposted posts that were1

already ordered deleted by Judge Rubin in a preliminary2

injunction. And Judge Jordan, after a long hearing, made that3

injunction permanent. And he just went straight out and4

reposted them and bragged about it, and said, you know, that he5

wasn't going to listen to the Court. He wasn't going to liste6

to Judge Jordan.7

THE COURT: And I've read the second one dated8

November 16, 2011. I don't see any defamation in there.9

All right. I've just read the one dated November 1910

and I don't see any defamation in there.11

MR. KIMBERLIN: Judge, when he, when he posts things12

from my blogs with --13

THE COURT: He posts things from your blogs, is that14

what you said?15

MR. KIMBERLIN: He'll take pictures of things from16

our non-profit organization's blogs, and he'll put them in17

here, interspersed with allegations of murder and terrorism and18

hoaxting and frauding and things like that. That is19

harassment, and it's interference with my business. Judge20

Jordan told him not to interfere with my business. That's his21

whole goal. He's admitted on his blogs that he wants to22

destroy my business.23

Judge Jordan told him at the hearing, leave this man24

alone. He's not left me alone. He's doubled down. Judge25


20/24

am 20

Jordan told him to let me get on with my life.1

THE COURT: I've read the November 18 and November 22

blogs. I don't see anything in there that's defamation.3

MR. KIMBERLIN: I have a peace order against Mr.4

Allen because he threatened to murder me.5

THE COURT: I have read the one dated December 10 an6

another one dated November 18. I don't see anything in there7

that constitutes defamation. November 20. I've read the one8

for December 20. And there certainly are offensive comments,9

but I don't see they rise the level of defamation.10

MR. KIMBERLIN: But they interfere with my business.11

That's the second part of Judge Jordan's ruling. And he does12

this on purpose, because my business is basically virtual. It13

relies on the internet. And people --14

THE COURT: What evidence do you have that this, tha15

anything has, anything specifically has interfered with your16

business?17

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I know for a fact that people,18

when they Google my name, the first thing that comes up is Mr.19

Allen's posts about me being a terrorist or a whatever. And20

they go and read his blog. And then they don't donate to our21

organization. This was a very big issue in the November 14th22

hearing. And Judge Jordan found that Mr. Allen was interferin23

with my business. And he ordered him not to do that. He24

ordered him to, if he was going to write, that he did so at hi25


21/24

am 21

own peril.1

And for him to be able to repost posts that Judge2

Jordan had already found to be defammatory in a preliminary3

injunction is wrong. I mean, that's why Judge Jordan made tha4

a permanent injunction, so that Mr. Allen would not be5

reposting the same stuff. He regurgitates the same stuff 326

years ago. And Judge Jordan, you know, when he was issuing hi7

order, he said 32 years is a long time, Mr. Allen. Even8

though you say you're propounding the truth, what for? That'9

what Judge Jordan said. Mr. Kimberlin should be allowed to10

get along with his life, get on with his life. And he says a11

the end, give the man a break. His kids and wife don't need12

to be reading about his past on the internet. That's what13

Judge Jordan told him.14

And he told Judge Jordan over and over, Judge, I'm15

done blogging about Mr. Kimberlin. I'm done. I won't blog16

about him anymore. That's what he said. And the Judge gave17

him a break with $100 nominal judgment and said just don't18

blog about this guy anymore. And now what does he do? He19

doubles down. And he said this morning in his post that if yo20

don't rule in his favor, you're going to get it. And he used 21

lot worse terms than that.22

THE COURT: He said in this last blog, which is23

apparently dated December 31st, this is the first I've seen of24

any requests to postpone the hearing and to allow him to25


22/24

am 22

testify telephonically. And in this blog, and I don't know wh1

he thinks the Court's going to know what he blogs about, but in2

any event, he says that he was never served with the petition3

for contempt.4

MR. KIMBERLIN: I realize what he says. I mean, he5

says a lot of things. I mean, he, when he was before Judge6

Jordan, he cried poverty. He cried --7

THE COURT: Well, what evidence is there of service8

of the contempt petition?9

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I mean, that's up to the court10

I mean the court sent him --11

THE COURT: No, it's up to you.12

MR. KIMBERLIN: No. The court sent him service.13

THE COURT: No.14

MR. KIMBERLIN: And, of course, he knows about it. 15

mean, he's known about it. He's been blogging about it. He's16

known about the case. I mean, like I said, this morning he17

blogged about it. He said that it's a half-hour session, that18

Judge Rupp has the case. I mean, he knows everything about19

this case. And, you know, of course, the court sent me copies20

of the order about the hearing and sent him copies, too.21

I mean, if you want to continue this hearing, I'll be22

happy to agree to a continuance and allow Mr. Allen to come23

here and make his case. That's fine with me. I would actuall24

like that.25


23/24

am 23

THE COURT: All right. Anything further?1

MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes. Could we get a continuance and2

allow Mr. Allen to appear? And I, if we get a hearing date, I3

will hire a sheriff to serve him personally in Massachusetts.4

JUDGE'S RULING5

Well, I've reviewed what's been submitted. I've6

reviewed one, two, three, four, five, six, seven different set7

of blogs that have been submitted, as well as the memorandum,8

which contains on page 7, items 1 through 20 of support of the9

plaintiff's petition to hold Mr. Allen in contempt. I do not10

find that there is sufficient evidence that would allow me to11

conclude that Mr. Allen is in contempt after reviewing all of12

these documents. I'm going to deny the petition for contempt.13

The Court's in recess.14

THE CLERK: All rise.15

The Court stands in recess.16

(The proceedings were concluded.)17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


24/24

am 24

/ Digitally signed by Audrey Murphy

DIGITALLY SIGNED CERTIFICATE

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. hereby certifies that the

foregoing pages represent an accurate transcript of the

duplicated electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the

Circuit Court for Montgomery County in the matter of:

Civil No. 339254

KIMBERLIN

v.

ANONYMOUS CYBER STALKER, ET AL.

By:

Audrey Murphy

Transcriber

Documents

Brett Kimblerlin v. Seth Allen Transcript 1.9.12 (OCR)