MARYLAND:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

AARON WALKER,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 398855-V

BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL.,

Defendants

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

TETYANA KIMBERLIN
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Aaron J. Walker, Esq., and files this Motion for Summary
Judgment against Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin. He states the following:
1.

A summary judgment against Mrs. Kimberlin is appropriate at this time because

there is no genuine dispute of material fact that she committed malicious prosecution in relation
to her May 18, 2015, Application for Statement of Charges (hereinafter Application, Exhibit 1)
Mr. Walker believed this was true before the Defendants filed their improper and untimely
responses to discovery, and their responses have solidified Mr. Walkers argument for summary
judgment because of her admission that she has no evidence to support her defense.
Accordingly, in consideration of the evidence Mr. Walker has placed before this Court via
affidavit, he requests a summary judgment against Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin on all issues.
I.
MRS. KIMBERLIN IS BARRED FROM INTRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE ON HER
OWN BEHALF
2.

In two prior motions (Dkt. Nos. 189 and 191), Mr. Walker stated that the

Defendants hadnt served any response to Mr. Walkers requests for admissions, interrogatories,
and requests for the production of documents. The facts have changed. On Wednesday, July 27,
2016four days after discovery was duethe Defendants provided some discovery, although
they still did not fully comply with the relevant Maryland Rules. Mr. Walker will seek leave to
file a supplement to his motion to compel (Dkt. No. 189) reflecting those new facts, and seeking
appropriate remedy for the Defendants late, improper responses.
3.

Despite being late and improper in many respects, the Defendants answers to Mr.

Walkers interrogatories settle one question: the Defendants have no evidence to support their
claims. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Interrogatories propounded to
Mrs. Kimberlin. Exhibit 3 is the Defendants improper joint answers to those interrogatories
(making no effort to separate which Defendant was answering which question). Their answers
are improper but sufficient for three specific interrogatories propounded by Mr. Walker:
2.
Identify each person, other than a person intended to be called as
an expert witness at trial, having discoverable information that tends to support a
position that you have taken or intend to take in this action, and state the subject
matter of the information possessed by that person.
3.
Identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness
at trial, state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, state the
substance of the findings and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify
and a summary of the grounds for each opinion, and, with respect to an expert
whose findings and opinions were acquired in anticipation of litigation or for trial,
summarize the qualifications of the expert, state the terms of the expert's
compensation, and attach to your answers any available list of publications
written by the expert and any written report made by the expert concerning the
expert's findings and opinions.
4.
If you intend to rely upon any documents, electronically stored
information, or tangible things to support a position that you have taken or intend
to take in the action, provide a brief description, by category and location, of all
such documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, and
identify all persons having possession, custody, or control of them.
The Defendants joint answer to each of these standard interrogatories is the same: none,
2

none, and none. See Exhibit 3. In short, Mrs. Kimberlin has admitted in these three
answers that she has no evidence whatsoever to support any position she has taken or intends to
take in this case.

She cites no ordinary witnesses (including the Defendants), no expert

witnesses, no documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things.1

4.

Further, Mrs. Kimberlin has invoked her right against self-incrimination against

any and all questions Mr. Walker could ask in a deposition in this case in her Motion to Quash
Deposition of Defendants Tetyana Kimberlin (Dkt. No.

).2 In Mr. Walkers Response to

Motion to Quash Deposition of Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin and Plaintiffs Motion in Limine
(filed simultaneously with this motion), Mr. Walker points out that when a defendant in a civil
action pleads [her] privilege against self-incrimination in response to discovery requests, [s]he is
prohibited from testifying at trial on matters pertaining to these requests. Kramer v. Levitt, 79
Md.App. 575, 588 (Md. App. 1988). Since Mrs. Kimberlin has pled the fifth in relation to
every question Mr. Walker might ask during a deposition, she cannot offer any testimony in any
other context.
5.

Accordingly, the only evidence that this Court can consider is that which Mr.

Walker presents in his affidavit and the affidavit of Mr. William Hoge III. See Exhibits 4 and 5,
respectively. Those affidavits are sufficient to establish that there is no genuine dispute of
material fact that Mrs. Kimberlin committed malicious prosecution against Mr. Walker.

Later in response to interrogatory 25 (to both Defendants), the Defendants are asked to identify
each witness they intend to call, but given that they have stated in response to interrogatory two
and three that they have no witnesses to support any position they have taken or intend to take,
those witnesses listed in response to interrogatory 25 cannot be seen as a list of witnesses that
will support their position on any issue.
2
The docket number associated with this item has not yet appeared on the Maryland Case Search
website.
3

II.
THERE IS NO GENUINE DISPUTE OF MATERIAL FACT THAT MRS. KIMBERLIN
COMMITTED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AGAINST MR. WALKER
6.

There is no doubt that Mr. Walker can show that the first two elements of the

cause of actionthat a prosecution was initiated against Mr. Walker by Mrs. Kimberlin, and that
it was terminated in Mr. Walkers favorare present. See Montgomery Ward v. Wilson, 339
Md. 701, 714 (1994). Indeed, the Defendants have admitted as much. Therefore, the only
question is whether there was probable cause to support the Application.
7.

The lack of probable cause is established by examining the Application (Exhibit

1), eliminating every undisputed lie, irrelevancy, and misleading half-truth in it (in which Mrs.
Kimberlin either withheld information that a reasonable person would realize might affect the
decision to prosecute or gave inaccurate or incomplete information to the decision-maker) and
then determining whether the remaining allegations would support probable cause.
8.

First, there is no material dispute of fact that the Application contains the

following falsehoods:
a.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had said, written, or done

anything with the intent of bullying, harassing or abusing Kelsie Kimberlin, or that a reasonable
person could interpret as having that intent.
b.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had said, written, or done

anything to incite, request, encourage, support, direct, approve of, be the mastermind of, or be
the ringleader of any bullying behavior directed toward Kelsie Kimberlin, or that he had written,
said or done anything that a reasonable person could interpret as inciting, requesting,
encouraging, supporting directing, approving of, being the mastermind of, or being the ringleader
of any bullying.

c.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had said, written, or done

anything with the intention of causing Kelsie Kimberlin any emotional distress, of causing Kelsie
Kimberlins academics to suffer, of causing any harm to Kelsie Kimberlins emotional health, of
causing Kelsie Kimberlin to be shunned, or of frightening Kelsie Kimberlin, or that would cause
such responses in a reasonable person, or that Mr. Walker has written, said or done anything that
a reasonable person could interpret as having that intent.
d.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had made false attacks online

against Kelsie Kimberlinwhether by that term attacks Mrs. Kimberlin simply meant Mr.
Walker has engaged in criticism or negative reporting or if she meant to imply physical battery.
e.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had written anything for the sole

purpose of harassment, or even partially for that purpose, or that Mr. Walker had written, said or
done anything that a reasonable person could interpret as having that intent.
f.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker solely, or in concert with Mr.

Hoge, investigated every aspect of the Kimberlin family and their business.
g.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker conducted forensic analysis of

photos and videos associated with the Kimberlin family.

h.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had sent people to the

Kimberlins home to take photographs.

i.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had exhibited a disturbing level of

interest in Kelsie since she was 14 years old, or that prior to that date, Mr. Walker had written,
said or done anything that a reasonable person could interpret as exhibiting such interest.
j.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had falsely accused Brett

Kimberlin of sex offenses and had insinuated and imputed that Kelsie is in danger, or that prior

to that date, Mr. Walker said, wrote, or did anything that a reasonable person could interpret as
insinuating or imputing such danger.
k.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had stated that he can save Kelsie

l.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker tried to friend and follow Kelsie

Kimberlin.

Kimberlin on Twitter and Facebook.

m.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had orchestrated campaigns to

post vile and insulting comments of a sexual nature on articles about Kelsie Kimberlin and on
music videos she had uploaded to YouTube, or that Mr. Walker had written, said or done
anything that a reasonable person could interpret as attempting to orchestrate such a campaign.
n.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had incited other twisted

individuals to pile on against Kelsie Kimberlin in perverted and unwanted ways, or that Mr.
Walker had written, said or done anything that a reasonable person could interpret as having that
intent.
o.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had posted comments on blog

posts talking about Kelsie Kimberlins titties and falsely insinuated sexual abuse.
p.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had contacted the police and

falsely told them that there was child porn at the Kimberlin home and that Kelsie Kimberlin is
being watched while undressing.
q.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had said that Kelsie Kimberlin is

a proper target for online harassment because of corruption of blood or any other reason, or
that Mr. Walker had written, said or done anything that a reasonable person could interpret as
having that intent.

r.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had offered Tetyana Kimberlin

money to make false statements to get Kelsie Kimberlin taken away from the Kimberlin family.
s.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had said, written, or done

anything with the intent to harm Kelsie Kimberlins music career, or that a reasonable person
would interpret as having that intent.
t.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had said, written, or done

anything that a reasonable person would find to be creepy or scary in relation to Kelsie
Kimberlin.
u.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had attacked people who

support Kelsie, including reporterswhether by attacked Mrs. Kimberlin meant battery, or

mere criticism or negative reporting.
v.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had been asked repeatedly to

leave the Kimberlin family alone or to stop any alleged bullying of Kelsie Kimberlin.
w.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker knew he was causing Kelsie

Kimberlin any the suffering or distress or that Mr. Walker was motivated by a desire to cause
such suffering or distress, or that Mr. Walker had written, said or done anything that a reasonable
person could interpret as having that intent.
x.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Messrs. Hoge and Walker celebrated every

day by telling their readers to get out the popcorn while they harass, bully, and abuse the
Kimberlin family, or that Mr. Walker had written, said or done anything that a reasonable person
could interpret as harassing, bullying or abusing the Kimberlin family, or celebrating every day.
y.

That prior to May 19. 2015, Mr. Walker had mocked any member of the

Kimberlin family but Brett Kimberlin, or that Mr. Walker had written, said or done anything that

a reasonable person could interpret as mocking any other member of the Kimberlin family.
z.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had followed Kelsie Kimberlin to

court proceedings.
aa.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker was ever focused harassment on

Brett Kimberlin, Tetyana Kimberlin, or Kelsie Kimberlin.

bb.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had done anything that can be

reasonably described as trolling Kelsie Kimberlins social media accounts.

cc.

That Mr. Walker assaulted Mr. Kimberlin on any date.

dd.

That Mr. Walker was obsessed with the Kimberlin family, or that Mr.

Walker had written, said or done anything that a reasonable person could interpret exhibiting
obsession.
9.

Those are the outright falsehoods contained in the Application. Further, any

allegation relating solely to the conduct of Mr. Hoge should be ignored because all of the
evidence before this Court shows that Mr. Walker should not be held vicariously liable for
anything Mr. Hoge had done. This is not to imply that Mr. Hoges conduct was criminal, only
that all of the allegations solely against him are irrelevant.
10.

Additionally, Mrs. Kimberlin made the following claims where she either

withheld information that a reasonable person would realize might affect the decision to
prosecute or gave incomplete information to the decision-maker:
a.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Messrs. Walker and Hoge had compiled and

stored data about the Kimberlin family. Because of the undifferentiated they referred to in the
Application, this claim must be answered in relation to both Mr. Walker and Mr. Hoge, and the
attached affidavits establish that Mrs. Kimberlin failed to disclose the facts that Messrs. Walker

and Hoge are journalists and that Mr. Kimberlin had been suing them both, on and off, for over
three years at the time the charges were filed. A reasonable person would recognize that these
two facts, if disclosed, would affect the decision to prosecute because it provides innocent
reasons to gather such datajournalism and litigation defense.
b.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had stated that Kelsie Kimberlin

needs to be protected.

The statement is roughly true but grossly taken out of context.

Specifically, Mr. Walker had said that he redacted Kelsie Kimberlin name from Internet postings
to protect her from the collateral damage of her fathers misconduct, and, in this sense, Mr.
Walker did say prior to May 19, 2015, that he was providing her a modicum of protection from
afar.

However, juxtaposed with the false claim that Mr. Walker had insinuate[ed] and

imput[ed] that Kelsie is in danger, see supra p. 5, and with the false claim just afterward that
Mr. Walker said that he can save her, Mrs. Kimberlins clear design was to falsely imply that
Mr. Walker was contemplating an illegal act such as kidnapping. A reasonable person would not
have withheld the context of Mr. Walkers statement from the Commissioner, and if Mrs.
Kimberlin had explained the actual context of that comment, it would have sounded innocent
indeed, laudable.
c.

That prior to May 19, 2015, the Kimberlins had to call 911 several times

because of unwanted contacts, and they had to install security cameras and 24/7 alarms. If
Mrs. Kimberlin means to suggest that Mr. Walker had made any unwanted contacts, prior to
May 19, 2015, that could have justified calling the police or installing a security system, this
claim is false. However, it appears that she is being coy about who made the contacts in order to
imply that it was Mr. Walker who made them when, in fact, she is not alleging that Mr. Walker
made the contacts but that they were made by someone else. In that case, her claim is tortuously

misleadingthat is, a reasonable person would know that the decision-maker would want to
know if the unwanted contacts that allegedly triggered these responses were made by someone
other than Mr. Walker, because that would render the allegation irrelevant.
d.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had communicated with Tetyana

Kimberlin. Mrs. Kimberlin did not report what she cannot now dispute: that Aaron Walker
engaged in such communications as her attorney and a compassionate human beingand with
her consent. That information should not have been withheld.
e.

That prior to May 19, 2015, Mr. Walker had threatened to take depositions

of Kelsie Kimberlin and her friends to ask about sexual topics. First, Mr. Walker didnt make a
threat. Second, Mrs. Kimberlin did not disclose what Mr. Walker actually said. Specifically,
Mr. Walker predicted that Mr. Kimberlin would not sue him for calling him a pedophile because
of the fear that Mr. Walker or an attorney representing him would conduct depositions of Kelsie
Kimberlin and/or her friends and the fear of the truth they might reveal. The full truth regarding
the allegation is as follows: that Mr. Walker, a lawyer, suggested that if there were a case
surrounding the question of whether Brett Kimberlin is a pedophile attracted to underage girls,
there would be depositions of Kelsie Kimberlin and of Kelsie Kimberlins friends, and that Mr.
Kimberlin would be terrified of what those depositions might reveal. It is doubtful that any
person would consider that statement anything more than a mundane, obvious prediction by an
experienced litigator. If Mrs. Kimberlin had further disclosed that her husband did call Kelsie
Kimberlin to the stand and that he did ask her questions about sex, then the Commissioner would
have been even less likely to charge Mr. Walker with a crime.
11.

With all of these misleading statementsas well as those which are false or

irrelevantremoved from consideration, Mr. Walker believes there can be no dispute of material

10

fact that there was a lack of probable cause to support the Application.

To make this

determination, Mr. Walker urges the Court to go through the Application and eliminate every
allegation where there is no genuine dispute that it is false, misleading, or irrelevant. Then,
focusing solely on the allegations that remain, this Court should determine if there was probable
cause based on those alleged facts.
12.

Indeed, Mr. Walker has helped this Court with the task. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a

copy of the same application that was attached as Exhibit 1, with the falsehoods, irrelevancies,
and half-truths outlined above blocked out. Mr. Walker believes that this Court can use this
version of the Application as a tool to evaluate whether a genuine dispute exists as to the
existence of probable cause. When one eliminates every allegation in the Application where
there is no dispute that the allegation is false, misleading, or irrelevant, one is left with only the
following facts:
a.

That Mr. Walker had used a computer from 2013-2015although there is

no proper allegation about what Mr. Walker had used it for. (Application, p. 1)
b.

That Kelsie Kimberlin had to change schools twice prior to May 19,

2015without any evidence that Mr. Walker caused her to change schools. (Application, p. 2)
c.

That Kelsie Kimberlins academics had suffered prior to May 19, 2015

without any evidence that Mr. Walker caused her academics to suffer. (Application, p. 2)
d.

Mr. Walker had written literally thousands of posts and tweets about one

or more members of the Kimberlin family prior to May 19, 2015without any evidence that
these posts and tweets were false or had harassing content. (Application, p. 2)
e.

That the Kimberlins had to call 911 several times and install security

systems prior to May 19, 2015without any evidence this was because of anything Mr. Walker

11

said, wrote, or did. (Application, p. 2)

f.

That Kelsie Kimberlin took some social media forums private or shut

them down completely prior to May 19, 2015without any evidence that Mr. Walker caused her
to do so. (Application, p. 2)
g.

That Mr. Walker mocked Brett Kimberlin prior to May 19, 2015.

(Application, p. 3)
h.

That the Application concerns writing on the Internet available in

Montgomery County prior to May 19, 2015. (Application, p. 4)

13.

That is it. Those are the allegations in Mrs. Kimberlins Application that Mr.

Walker cannot at this time prove are untruthful, misleading, or irrelevant. At most, if we assume
Mrs. Kimberlin was telling the truth on these points, these allegations reasonably show that
Kelsie Kimberlin might have been going through a rough patch at the time the charges were
filed.

What is critically missing, however, is any evidence that Mr. Walker is criminally

responsible for Kelsie Kimberlins alleged difficulties under MD CODE Crim. L. 3-805(b)(2).
14.

Further, if this Court agrees that there is a lack of probable cause, then malice can

be inferredas has been the law of this case. Likewise, Mrs. Kimberlin cannot offer any
evidence to dispute Mr. Walker on the subject of compensatory damages or the need for an
injunction.
15.

Finally, on the issue of punitive damages, if this Court doesnt believe it can infer

the malice required to support punitive damages, actual malice can be shown fairly easily.
Indeed, if this Court agrees with Mr. Walker that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to
probable cause, this Court will have found that Mrs. Kimberlin repeatedly lied to and misled the
Commissioner in order to institute false charges against Mr. Walker. Such conduct constitutes

12

clear and convincing evidence of actual malicethat is, that she had an evil motive influenced
by hate with a purpose to deliberately and willfully injure Mr. Walker. That not only meets the
malice standard for malicious prosecution, it also meets the requirement of malice for punitive
damages.
16.

High punitive damages are appropriate in order to deter Mrs. Kimberlin from

engaging in similar conduct, and such damages should be in proportion to the wrongfulness of
her conduct. Her plain intent was to use the power of the state to punish Mr. Walker for
engaging in expression protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of
Rights. While those legal charters only protect one from government action, the natural right of
free expression is greater than that. When Theo Van Gogh, for instance, is murdered for his
criticism of what he perceives as Islamic culture,3 Medgar Evers is murdered for advocating for
equal rights for persons of every color,4 or abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy is murdered defending his
presses from a pro-slavery mob,5 that might be private violence, but these acts of violence still
abridge the natural right of freedom of speech. How many people hold their tongues when
terrorists murder those who say the wrong thing?6 Likewise, how many people will refrain

See, e.g., Rachel Donaldio, Provocateurs Death Haunts the Dutch, NY TIMES, October 30,
2014, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/arts/provocateurs-death-haunts-thedutch-.html?_r=0.
4
See, e.g., NAACP History: Medgar Evers, NAACP, available at http://www.naacp.org/pages/
naacp-history-medgar-evers.
5
See, e.g. Fawn Brodie, THADDEUS STEVENS: SCOURGE OF THE SOUTH 68 (1959).
6
See, e.g., Associated Press, Gay Pride revelers seek to offset fear after Orlando massacre, THE
TIMES-PICAYUNE, June 18, 2016, available at http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/06/
gay_pride_revelers_seek_to_off.html (describing a smaller-than-usual turnout at a gay pride
parade in Rhode Island after the terrorist attack in a gay nightclub on June 12, 2016, and quoting
a man as stating that he believed the low turnout was in part because of fear of terrorism) and
Dave Itzkoff, South Park Episode Altered after Muslim Groups Warning, NY TIMES, April
22, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/arts/television/23park.html
(discussing how the creators of the TV show South Park created an episode depicting
13

from engaging in lawful criticism of Brett Kimberlin if they know that Tetyana Kimberlin will
file a false criminal complaint against them in revenge? How many will say, I dont need the
hassle, nor do I want to have to explain this to future employers?
17.

Our Declaration of Independence says that we have certain unalienable rights and

[t]hat to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.

In other words,

government doesnt exist for its own benefit, but rather it has a positive duty to actively protect
the rights of the people. It is not enough, then, for Maryland to simply avoid violating Mr.
Walkers right to freedom of expression by its own actions. It must go further and protect Mr.
Walkers right to freedom of expression from those private actors who would commit crimes and
torts against him to punish Mr. Walker for what he wrote and frighten others into silence. The
way this state protects Mr. Walker from such private, wrongful conduct aimed at silencing Brett
Kimberlins critics is by rigorously enforcing the law against such conduct. It is a travesty that it
took over three decades for Medgar Evers freedom of speech to be vindicated with the
conviction of Bryon De La Beckwith. Mr. Walker hopes for a similar vindication before this
Courtand on a much faster timetableincluding an injunction designed to prevent similar
misconduct in the future and high punitive damages to punish Mrs. Kimberlin for her misconduct
and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct.
18.

Therefore, with no genuine dispute that a prosecution was instituted by Mrs.

Kimberlin, with no genuine dispute that it was resolved in Mr. Walkers favor, with no genuine
dispute that there was no probable cause, with no dispute that there was malice, with no dispute
that compensatory damages are justified, with no dispute that punitive damages are justified and

Mohammed, and how the network that airs South Park, Comedy Central, censored that episode
in the face of terroristic threats).
14

with no dispute that an injunction is justified, Mr. Walker respectfully asks this Court to grant
this motion for summary judgment against Mrs. Kimberlin.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, this Court should grant Mr. Walkers Motion for
Summary Judgment against Mrs. Kimberlin, with or without a hearing, and provide any other
relief that is just and equitable.

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

Aaron J. Walker, Esq.

Va Bar# 48882
P.O. Box 3075
Manassas, Virginia 20108
AaronJW72@gmail.com
(703) 216-0455
(no fax)
VERIFICATION
I, Aaron Walker, solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the
foregoing paper are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and that any copies
of any documents are true and correct copies of their originals.
Dated:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the
day of
, 2016, I served copies of this
document on Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin at 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817.
In accordance with the Courts order of March 10, 2016 (Dkt. No. 111), I have performed such
service by certified mail and will file the green card when it is returned to me.

15

MARYLAND:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

AARON WALKER,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 398855-V

BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL.,

Defendants

ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AGAINST DEFENDANT TETYANA KIMBERLIN
Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment Against Tetyana
Kimberlin and Request for a Hearing (Dkt. No.

), any opposition thereto, it is this _________

day of __________________, 2016, hereby

ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED
against Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin shall pay compensatory damages to the
Plaintiff equaling $100,000.00 and punitive damages of $1,000,000.00; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin is prohibited from making any knowingly
false statement in any Application for Statement of Charges or in any other legal document; and
it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin is prohibited from making any statement
where she withholds material information or gives incomplete information in connection with
any Application for Statement of Charges or in any other legal document; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin is prohibited from accusing Mr. Walker of
any crime without disclosing that he is a journalist and an attorney; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin is prohibited from making any factual
allegation in a legal document without having admissible evidence proving it to be true; and it is
further
ORDERED that Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin is prohibited from making any allegation
in a legal document that Mr. Walker wrote something without producing a true, correct and
unaltered copy of the original; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin is prohibited from claiming in an
Application for Statement of Charges or any other legal document that Mr. Walker assaulted
Brett Kimberlin on January 9, 2012; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin is prohibited from filing any Application
for Statement of Charges without first obtaining preclearance from this Court, certifying that it is
supported by admissible evidence.

Hon. Michael D. Mason

Judge, Circuit Court of Maryland for Montgomery County