Va Complaint (2 of 2) (OCR)

121. Defendant Brynaert's conduct was outrageous and intolerable.

122. Defendant Brynaert's wrongful conduct caused the emotional distress.

123. The Plaintiff's emotional distress is and was severe.

124. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages as a direct result of

Defendant Brynaert's intentional infliction of emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests an award ofdamages of no less than $2,000,000.00,

punitive damages, attorneys' fees, court costs and any and all relief this Court deems just and

equitable.

COUNTXIllINFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

NEW YORK LAW-DEFENDANT BRYNAERT

125. The Plaintiff incorporates as if fully stated herein, the allegations of paragraphs I

through 124 above.

126. Defendant Brynaert actually revealed the Plaintiff's true name to the world and

connected that name to the online pseudonym Aaron Worthing.

127. Defendant Brynaert's conduct was intentional.

128. Defendant Brynaert's conduct was negligent.

129. Defendant Brynaert's conduct was outrageous and intolerable.

130. Defendant Brynaert's wrongful conduct caused the emotional distress.

131. The Plaintiffs emotional distress is and was severe.


Defendant Brynaert's intentional infliction of emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests an award of damages of no less than $2,000,000.00,


equitable.

21

co~RFERE lCE WITH B E S EXPEcr CIES

VIRGINIA LA'V-DEFE DANT KlMBERL

133. The Plaintiff incorporates as if fully stated herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1

through 132 above.

134. The Plaintiff has or had a reasonable business expectancy that IL....-__--'

____________......1 would continue to provide full time employment for

compensation to the Plaintiff.

135. Defendant Kimberlin knew or should have known of the Plaintiff's relations with

D and the busiDess expectancy that inures to the Plaint:i.frs benefit

136. Defendant Kimberlin intentionally interfered with the Plaintiffs current and

prospective relations and business expectancies in Virginia, by the unlawful means of

defamation.

137. Defendant Kimberlin negligently interfered ;vith the Plaintiffs cwrent and

prospective relations and business expectancies in Virginia. by the unlawful means of

defamation.


Defendant Kimberlin's intentional interference with his business expectancies.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffrequests an award ofdamages of no less than S2~OOO,OOO.OO,


equitable.

139. The Plaintiff incorporates as if full stated herein. the allegations of paragraphs I

through 138 abo 'e.

22

140. Defendant Kimberlin willfully and intentionally acted in a manner calculated to

cause damage to the Plaintiff in his lawful business pursuits.

141. Defendant Kimberlin's willful and intentional acts were done with the purpose of

causing loss or damage to the Plaintiff's business, by the unlawful means of defamation.

142. Defendant Kimberlin's willful and intentional acts were undertaken without just

cause.

143. Upon information and belief, this conduct originated in Maryland and therefore

Maryland law would apply, too.


Defendant Kimberlin's malicious interference with his business relations.



equitable.

COUNT XVInnmRFERENCE~BUSllffiSSEXPECTANCmS

D.C. LAW-DEFENDANT KIMBERLIN


through 144 above.

146. The Plaintiff has or had a reasonable business expectancy with current and

prospective clients.

147. Defendant Kimberlin knew or should have known of the Plaintiffs business

expectancy that inures to the Plaintiff's benefit.

148. Defendant Kimberlin intentionally interfered with the Plaintiff's current and

prospective relations and business expectancies in the District of Columbia, by the unlawful

means ofdefamation.

23

149. Defendant Kimberlin negligently interfered with the Plaintiffs current and


means of defamation.


Defendant Kimberlin's intentional interference with his business expectancies.

WHEREFORE. the Plaintiff requests an award ofdamages ofno less than $2,000,000.00,


equitable.

eoUNTXVTIINTERFERE_ CE WITH BUSINESS EXPECT eIES

VIRGINIA LAW-DEFENDANT RAUHAUSER

151. The Plaintiff incorporates as if fully stated herein, tbeallegations of paragraphs 1

through 150 above.

152. The Plaintiff has or had a reasonable business expectancy that IL.. .....I

L....- Iwould continue to pro -de full time employment for


153. Defendant Rauhauser knew or should have known of the Plaintiff's relations with

o and the business expectancy that inures to the Plaint.ifrs benefit

154. Defendant Rauhauser intentionally interfered with. the Plaintiff's current and


defamation.

155. Defendant Rauhauser negligently interfered with the Plaintiffs current and


defamation.

24


Defendant Rauhauser's intentional interference with his business expectancies.



equitable.

COUNTxvmINTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSMARYLAND LAW-DEFENDANT RAUHAUSER


through 156 above.

158. Defendant Rauhauser willfully and intentionally acted in a manner calculated to

cause damage to the Plaintiff in his lawful business pursuits.

159. Defendant Rauhauser's willful and intentional acts were done with the purpose of

causing loss or damage to the Plaintiff's business, by the unlawful means ofdefamation.

160. Defendant Rauhauser's willful and intentional acts were undertaken without just

cause.

161. Upon information and belief, this conduct originated in Maryland and therefore

Maryland law would apply, too.


Defendant Rauhauser's malicious interference with his business relations.



equitable.

25

COUNT XIXINTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS EXPECTANCIES

D.C. LAW-DEFENDANT RAUHAUSER


through 161 above.



165. Defendant Rauhauser knew or should have known of the Plaintiffs business


166. Defendant Rauhauser intentionally interfered with the Plaintiff's current and


means ofdefamation.

167. Defendant Rauhauser negligently interfered with the Plaintiff's current and


means of defamation.


Defendant Rauhauser's intentional interference with his business expectancies.



equitable.

COUNT XXINTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS EXPECTANCIES

VIRGINIA LAW-DEFENDANT BRYNAERT


through 168 above.

26

170. The Plaintiff has or had a reasonable business expectancy that ....' .....

'--- ---'1 would continue to provide full time employment for


171. Defendant Brynaert knew or should have known of the Plaintiffs relations with

c=J and the business expectancy that inures to the Plainti.frs benefit.

172. Defendant Brynaert intentionally interfered 'th the Plaintiff's current and


defamation.

173. Defendant Brynaert negligently interfered with the Plaintiff's current and


defamation.

174. The Plaintiff bas suffered and continues to suffer damages as a direct result of

Defendant Brynaect's intentional interference with his business expectancies.


punitive damages, attorneys' fees, court costs and any and all relief this Court deems Just and

equitable.

175. The Plaintiff incorporates as if fully stated herein, the allegations of paragraphs I

through ]74 above.

176. The Plaintiff has or had a reasonable business expectancy that ....1 .....

____________----'1 would continue to provide fuIJ time employment for

compensation to the Plaintiff and with future and prospective clients.

27

177. Defendant Brynaert knew or should have known of the Plaintiffs business


178. Defendant Brynaert intentionally interfered with the Plaintiffs current and

prospective relations and business expectancies, by the unlawful means of defamation.

179. Defendant Brynaert negligently interfered with the Plaintiffs current and

prospective relations and business expectancies, by the unlawful means ofdefamation.

180. Such conduct was conducted in the state of New York and therefore New York

law would apply, as well as Maryland, Virginia and D.C. law.


Defendant Brynaert's intentional interference with his business expectancies.

WHEREFORE, the PlaintifIrequests an award of damages of no less than $2,000,000.00,


equitable.

COUNT XXIIINTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSNEW YORK LAW-DEFENDANT BRYNAERT


through 181 above.



184. Defendant Brynaert knew or should have known of the Plaintiffs business

expectancy that inures to the Plaintiffs benefit.

185. Defendant Brynaert intentionally interfered with the Plaintiffs current and

prospective relations and business expectancies, by the unlawful means of defamation.

28

---------- -

186. Defendant Brynaert negligently interfered with the Plaintiffs current and

prospective relations and business expectancies.

187. Defendant Brynaert engaged in this conduct in New York State.


Defendant Brynaert's intentional interference with his business expectancies.



equitable.

COUNTxxmBUSINESS CONSPIRACY UNDER VIRGINIA CODE § 18.2-499, 500


through 188 above.

190. By virtue of the acts set forth above, Defendants Kimberlin, Brynaert, and

Rauhauser, combined, associated, agreed, mutually undertook and acted in concert, and thereby

conspired to willfully and maliciously harm the Plaintiff in his reputation, business, trade and/or

profession (the "Conspiracy").

191. Such acts were accomplished by the unlawful means of defamation, extortion, and

intentional infliction ofemotional distress.

192. Such acts were accomplished by the following overt acts:

a. Defamation of the Plaintiff by Defendants Kimberlin, Brynaert, and

Rauhauser;

b. Extortion of the Plaintiff by Defendants Kimberlin, and Raubauser;

c. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Defendants Kimberlin,

Brynaert, and Rauhauser.

29

193. The Conspiracy did willfully and maliciously hann the Plaintiff his reputation,

business, trade and/or profession.

194. As a result of the Conspiracy and the overt acts committed in furtherance of the

conspiracy, the Plaintiff suffered actual damages.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff seeks an award of actual damages in an amount of no less

than $2,000,000.00, statutory (treble) damages and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, court costs

and any and all relief this Court deems just and equitable.

COUNT XXIVCIVll.- COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY-VIRGINIA


through 194 above.

196. By .virtue of the acts set forth above, Defendants Kimberlin, Brynaert, and



-profession (the "Conspiracy").





Rauhauser;

b. Extortion ofthe Plaintiff by Defendants Kimberlin, and Rauhauser;



30

199. The Conspiracy did willfully and maliciously harm the Plaintiff in his reputation,

business, trade andlor profession.





equitable.

COUNT XXVC~COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY-MARYLAND


through 200 above.



conspired to willfully and maliciously hann the Plaintiff in his reputation, business, trade and/or


203. Such acts were accomplished by the unlawful mearis of defamation, extortion, and

intentional infliction of emotional distress.



Rauhauser~

b. Extortion of the Plaintiff by Defendants Kimberlin, and Rauhauser;



205. The Conspiracy was fonned in part in Maryland.

31


business, trade and/or profession.





equitable.

COUNT XXVICJVll., COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY-NEW YORK


through 207 above.









Rauhauser~

b. Extortion of the Plaintiff by Defendants Kimberlin, and Rauhauser;



212. The Conspiracy was formed in part in New York State.

32


business, trade and/or profession by the use of defamation, extortion, infliction of emotional

distress.





equitable.

COUNT XXVIIFEDERALSTALRlNG--DEFENDANT~ERLIN


through 214 above.

216. Defendant Kimberlin used an interactive computer service to engage in a course

of conduct that caused the Plaintiff substantial emotional distress.

217. Defendant Kimberlin used an interactive computer service to engage in a course

of conduct that caused the Plaintiff to be in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily

injury for himself, an immediate family member or his spouse.

21S. Defendant Kimberlin intended to cause the Plaintiff substantial emotional distress.

219. Defendant Kimberlin intended to cause the Plaintiff to be in reasonable fear of the

death of, or serious bodily injury for himself, an immediate family member or his spouse.

220. Such conduct is in violation of IS·U.S.C. § 2261A.

221. Such conduct had no legitimate purpose.


Defendant Kimberlin's stalking.

33



equitable.

COUNT XXVllIFEDERAL STALKING-DEFENDANT RAUHAUSER

223. The Plaintiff incorporates as if fully stated herein. the allegations of paragraphs 1

through 222 above.

224. Defendant Rauhauser used an interactive computer service to engage in a course

ofconduct that caused the Plaintiff substantial emotional distress.

225. Defendant Rauhauser used an interactive computer service to engage in a course

of conduct that caused the Plaintiff to be in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily

injury for himself, an immediate family member or his spouse.

226. Defendant Rauhauser intended to cause the Plaintiff substantial emotional

distress.

227. Defendant Rauhauser intended to cause the Plaintiff to be in reasonable fear of the

death of, or serious bodily injury for himself, an immediate family member or his spouse.

228. Such conduct is in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A.



Defendant Ruahuaser's stalking.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests an award of damages ofno less than $2,000,000.00,


equitable.

34

COUNT XXIXFEDERAL STALKING--DEFENDANT BRYNAERT


through 230 above.

232. Defendant Brynaert used an interactive computer service to engage in a course of

conduct that caused the Plaintiff substantial emotional distress.

233. Defendant Brynaert used an interactive computer service to engage in a course of

conduct that caused the Plaintiff to be in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury

for himself, an immediate family member or his spouse.

234. Defendant Brynaert intended to cause the Plaintiff substantial emotional distress.

235. Defendant Brynaert intended to cause the Plaintiff to be in reasonable fear of the

death of, or serious bodily injutY for himself, an immediate family member or his spouse.

236. Such conduct is in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A.



Defendant Brynaert's stalking..



equitable.

COUNT XXXNEW YORK STALKING-DEFENDANT BRYNAERT

239. The Plaintiff incorporates as if fully stated herein. the allegations of paragraphs 1

through 238 above.

3S

II!I

II

!o

240. Defendant Brynaert has intentionally engaged in a course of conduct directed at

the Plaintiff which is likely to cause the Plaintiff to reasonably fear physical injury to himself or

a member ofhis immediate family.

241. Defendant Brynaert did such acts with an intent to harass, annoy or alarm the

Plaintiff.

242. Such conduct is in violation ofNY CLS Penal Law§ 120.50.



Defendant Brynaert's stalking.



equitable.

COUNT XXXINEW YORK HARASSMENT-DEFENDANT BRYNAERT


through 244 above.

246. Defendant Brynaert has intentionally engaged in a course of conduct directed at

the Plaintiff which is likely to cause the Plaintiff to reasonably fear physical injury to himself or

a member of his immediate family.

247. Defendant did such acts with an intent to harass, annoy or alarm the Plaintiff.

248. Such conduct is in violation ofNY CLS Penal Law§ 240.25.



Defendant Brynaert's harrassment.

36



equitable.

COUNTXXXllINJUNCTION


through 250 above.

252. By virtue of the Defendants' continued activities as described herein, the Plaintiff

will suffer irreparable harm including, but not limited to, damage to his business, reputation,

standing in his industry and danger of physical hann to himself and anyone surrounding him.

253. By virtue of the Defendant's outrageous conduct, including defamation,

harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional exposure to threats of

terrorism, invasion of privacy, extortion, and other illegal and/or immoral acts, there is a

substantial likelihood that the Plaintiff will succeed on the merits of his claims after trial.

254. Because the Defendants' conduct is designed to punish the Plaintiff for providing

legal advice and for the exercise of freedom of speech, the balance of equities favors the grant of

injunctive relief

255. Injunctive relief would be in the public interest because it would uphold freedom

of speech and the right to receive the advice of counsel, and it would create a disincentive to

stalk and harass any person for engaging in such constitutionally protected activities.

256. Va. Code § 18.2-500 specifically provides that the Plaintiff Win be entitled to

injunctive relief against a statutory business conspiracy as well as money damages.

37

257. Virginia case law also provides that a person can obtain an injunction to prevent a

crime from occurring. This conspiracy is presently in violation of numerous state and federal

laws, including VA. CODE §18.2-46.5(C).which states that

Any person who solicits, invites, recruits, encourages, or otherwise causes orattempts to cause another to participate in an act or acts of terrorism, as defined in§ 18.2-46.4, is guilty ofa Class 4 felony.

(Emphasis added.)

258. Future harm to the Plaintiff can only be prevented by the issuance ofan injunction

enjoining the Defendants from identifying Aaron Walker as Aaron Worthing, from giving out

Mr. Walker's personal information including and not limited to his home address, his current

employer, and the address of his employer, as well as a restraining order further harassment.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff request an injunction against the Defendants enjoining them

from 1) identifying the Plaintiff as the pseudonymous author known as Aaron Worthing or A.W.,

or posting personal information about the Plaintiff including but not limited to his home address,

his current employer or his work address, 2) requiring the Defendants to remove all references

from public view identifying the Plaintiff as the pseudonymous author known as Aaron

Worthing or A.W., or providing personal information about the Plaintiff including but not

limited to his home address, his current employer or his work address, 3) prohibiting the

Defendants from contacting the Plaintiff or his immediate family or his current employer, 4)

prohibiting the Defendants from approaching within 1,000 feet of the Plaintiff, his wife, his

current emplQyer and any future employer, 5) prohibiting the Defendants from conspiring with

others to accomplish the above prohibited acts, and for an award of damages of no less than

$2,000,000.00, attorneys' fees, court costs and any and all relief this Court deems just and

equitable.

38

Dated: Monday, January 30,2012

Respec~wlySubrrUtte~

Blt;=$,.4Aaronf alker, Esq.Virginia Bar# 48882I IManassas, Virginia 20109p:1 IF: nJa

39

Documents

Va Complaint (2 of 2) (OCR)