IN#THE#CIRCUIT#COURT#OF#MONTGOMERY#COUNTY#MARYLAND#

#
BRETT#KIMBERLIN,#
#
Plaintiff,#
#
#
v.#
#
#
#
#
#
No.#CV#380966EV#
#
AARON#WALKER,#et#al,#
#
Defendants.#
#
MOTION&FOR&NEW&TRIAL&
&
#####Now#comes#Plaintiff#Brett#Kimberlin,#pursuant#to#Md.#Rule#2E533,#and#moves#this#
Court#to#grant#a#new#trial#with#regard#to#two#counts#in#the#Second#Amended#
Complaint,#EE#Count#III,#defamation,#and#Count#IV,#false#light/invasion#of#privacy.##In#
short,#the#Court#misapplied#wellEestablished#law#concerning#per#se#defamation,#
erroneously#ruled#on#the#wrong#aspect#of#false#light,#and#failed#to#follow#Maryland#
law#with#regard#to#directed#verdicts.###
Statement&Of&The&Case&
#######On#August#11#and#12,#2014,#a#jury#trial#was#held#in#this#Court#on#Plaintiffs#
defamation#and#false#light/invasion#of#privacy#counts.##At#the#end#of#the#
presentation#of#evidence,#this#Court#granted#the#Defendants#motions#to#dismiss#
based#on#the#finding#that#Plaintiff#did#not#prove#that#he#was#not#a#pedophile#as#
stated#by#the#Defendants,#and#that#Plaintiff#presented#no#evidence#to#support#his#
false#light/invasion#of#privacy#claim.##The#Clerk#entered#judgment#on#November#5,#
2014.##This#motion#was#timely#filed#within#the#ten#days#after#entry#of#judgment#as#
provided#for#under#Md.#Rule#2E533.##
#
#

Statement&Of&The&Issues&
I.

This#Court#erred#as#a#matter#of#law#in#its#misapplication#of#the#law#
regarding#per#se#defamation,#the#burden#of#proof,#and#the#requirement#of#
harm.#

II.

This#Court#erred#by#misapplying#the#wrong#law#regarding#false#light,#and#
finding#that#Plaintiff#had#not#provided#any#evidence#to#prove#his#claim.#

III.

This#Court#failed#to#follow#wellEestablished#Maryland#case#law#regarding#
issuing#a#directed#verdict.#
ARGUMENT&

I&
Publishing&Statements&That&Plaintiff&Is&A&Pedophile&Constitutes&Per&Se&
Defamation&That&Does&Not&Require&A&Showing&Of&Falsity&Or&Harm&
&
&&&&&This#Court,#at#the#conclusion#of#the#evidence#at#trial,#stated#that#pedophilia#is#not#
a#crime#and#so#the#Defendants#calling#Plaintiff#a#pedophile#in#scores#of#tweets,#blog#
posts#and#public#statements#did#not#constitute#per#se#defamation.###
Assume#arguendo#that#pedophilia#was#a#crime#and#it#is#not,#even#though#as#I#
said#the#plaintiff#kept#referring#to#it#as#a#crime,#it's#not#a#crime.#Assume#
arguendo#that#it#was,#there#was#absolutely#no#evidence#in#this#case#of#exactly#
to#what#the#defendant#is#alleged#to#have#done.#And#so#I#think#the#case#falls#
short#of#rising#to#the#level#that#it#should#go#to#the#jury.#And#for#those#reasons#
the#Court#issues#a#judgment#in#favor#of#the#defendants.#Transcripts#at#271.#
##
#####The#Court#also#asked.#So#what#do#we#tell#the#jury#about#damages?#Tr.#at#255.#&&&&&&
&
1.
The#Court#erred#as#a#matter#of#law#in#its#ruling#for#the#directed#verdict#on#
Count#III.##Publishing#statements#calling#Plaintiff#a#pedophile,#rapist#and#abuser,#and#
saying#he#engaged#in#pedophilia#is#considered#per$se#defamation#according#to#wellE
established#state#and#federal#case#law.##In#a#case#very#similar#to#this#one,#Longebehn$
v.$Schoenrock,#727#NW#2d#153#(Minn,#CA,#2007),#the#trial#judge#ruled#that#calling#

someone#Pat#the#Pedophile#did#not#constitute#per#se#defamation.##The#court#of#
appeals#disagreed:#
Here,#the#jury#found#that#respondent#called#appellant#"Pat#the#
Pedophile,"#but#that#he#did#not#accuse#appellant#of#being#a#
pedophile.##Because#there#was#no#accusation,#the#district#court#
concluded#that#the#statement#was#not#defamatory#per#se.##But#the#test#
is#not#whether#the#speaker#intended#to#make#an#accusation,#but#
whether#a#reasonable#person#under#similar#circumstances#would#
understand#the#statement#as#making#an#accusation#or#imputing#
criminal#or#serious#sexual#misconduct#to#another.##See#Anderson,#262#
N.W.2d#at#372#("[T]he#test#[is]#whether#a#reasonable#person#would#
believe#the#statement#to#be#defamatory.").##
#

With# this# rule# in# mind,# we# hold# that# in# almost# every# circumstance# a#
reasonable# listener# would# believe# that# calling# a# person# a# pedophile#
imputes# serious# sexual# misconduct# or# criminal# activity# to# that#
person.## It# is,# therefore,# defamatory# per# se.## This# is# especially# true#
where,# as# in# this# case,# the# listener# had# no# prior# knowledge# that# the#
offensive# name# was# a# nickname# that# the# community# commonly# used#
to#signify#its#displeasure#with#appellant#a#local#police#officer#dating#a#
much# younger# woman.## Furthermore,# respondent# has# cited# no# case,#
and# our# research# has# revealed# none,# holding# that# calling# a# person# a#
pedophile#could#be#understood#by#a#reasonable#person#to#be#anything#
but#defamatory#per#se.#[at#159]#

#
2. Maryland# law# states#that#in#the#case# of#words# or#conduct# actionable# as#
defamation#per$ se,$ "the#injurious# character# of#the#words# is#a#selfEevident#
fact#of#common#knowledge# of#which#the#court#takes#judicial# notice# and#
need# not#be#pleaded# or#proved."# Haskins$v.$Bayliss,$440#F.Supp.2d#455,#461##
(D.#Md.##2006).##Under# Maryland#law,#statements# are# defamatory#per$ se$
when# the# statements#possess#innately#injurious#characteristics.# Bouie$v.$
Rugged$ Wearhouse,$Inc.,$2007#WL#430752#(D.#Md.#2007);#Hearst$ Corp.$v.$
Hughes,$297#Md.#112,# 125,# 121#A.2d# 466,# 492# (1983).# Accusing#an#
individual#of# committing#a# crime# is# an#example# of# a# statement#that#is#

defamatory# per$ se.$ See,$ e.g.,$ Carter$ v.$ Aramark$Sports$ and$Entertainment$

Services,$ Inc.,$ 153#Md.#App.# 210,# 238,# 835#A.2d# 262,#278# (2003)(allegation#
that#a#person# is#a#thief# is#defamatory#per$ se):##American$Stores$v.$Byrd,#181#
A2d#333#(Md.#1962)#(if#statement#made#in#ordinary#lay#language#that#would#
impute#a#crime#or#guilt,#sufficient#to#prove#libel);#Brown$v.$Farkas,#511#NE#2d#
1143#(Ill.#1986)#(call#to#DSS#that#employee#bragged#about#sex#with#daughter#
is#per$se#defamation);#Conner$v.$Scruggs,#821#So#2d#542#(LA#App.#2002);#Smith$
v.$Danielczyk,#928#A2d#795(Md.#2007)(per$se#defamation#to#impute#
commission#of#a#crime#for#which#a#person#might#be#indicted#and#punished);#
Pollitt$v.$Brush$Moore$Newspapers,#136#A2d#573#(MD#1957)#(same);#Farnum$
v.$Colbert,#293#A2d#279#(DC#1972)#(same).##In#fact,#the#DC#Superior#Court#
recently#found#defamation#from#the#statement#that#Michael#Mann#is#the#
Jerry#Sandusky#of#climate#change.##The#Court#found#that#to#place#Plaintiffs#
name#in#the#same#sentence#with#Sandusky#(a#convicted#pedophile)#is#clearly#
outrageous.##Mann$v$National$Review,#2012#CA#008263#B#(Aug.#30,#2013).###
3. Blacks#Law#Dictionary#5th#Ed,#West#1970,#page#376#states#the#following#with#
regard#to#defamation#per#se:##
In#respect#of#words,#those#which#by#themselves,#and#as#such,#without#
reference#to#extrinsic#proof,#injure#the#reputation#of#the#person#to#
whom#they#are#applied.#
#
#
#
#

Defamation#per#se#means#defamation#in#itself.##Again,#according#to#Blacks##
at#p#1245.#:#
such#words#as#are#deemed#slanderous#without#proof#of#special#
damages.##Generally#an#utterance#is#deemed#slanderous#per#se#when#
publication#(a)#charges#the#commission#of#a#crime,#(b)#imputes#some#
offensive#or#loathsome#disease#which#would#tend#to#deprive#a#person#

#
#
#

of#society,#(c)#charges#a#woman#who#is#not#chaste,#or#(d)#tends#to#
injure#a#party#in#his#trade,#business,#office#or#occupation.#
Calling#Plaintiff#a#pedophile#connotes#criminal#activity#and#illegal#sexual##
activity.##Blacks#defines#pedophilia#as:#

1. An#adults#sexual#disorder#consisting#in#the#desire#for#sexual#
gratification#by#molesting#children,#esp,#prepubescent#children.#2.#
An#adults#act#of#child#molestation.#
#
By#calling#Plaintiff#a#pedophile,#Defendants#were#imputing#an#act#of#serious#
and#illegal#sexual#misconduct#(rape#and#molestation)#to#Plaintiff.##A#
statement#is#defamatory#per#se#if#it#imputes#serious#sexual#misconduct#to#the#
subject#of#the#statement#Baufiled$v.$Safelite$Glass$Corp,#831#F.#Supp.#713,#717#
(D.#Minn.#1987)#See#also,#Restatement#(Second)#of#Torts,#section#574.##
Regardless#of#the#context#in#which#the#word#is#used,#pedophile#will#not#have#
an#innocent#meaning.##By#definition,#the#use#of#the#word#accuses#Plaintiff#of#
engaging#in#pedophilia,#a#heinous#criminal#offense.#
4. In#the#instant#case,#the#Defendants#use#of#the#words#pedophile#and#
pedophilia#in#their#many#published#statements#and#utterances#were#
intentional#accusations#of#crimesi.e.,#sex#with#children.##In#fact,#the#
Defendants#specifically#stated#that#they#wanted#Plaintiff#arrested#and#
prosecuted#for#sexual#assault#of#a#child,#even#though#no#such#thing#ever#
occurred.#Plaintiff#presented#dozens#of#documents#at#trial#showing#the#
Defendants#use#of#these#defamatory#words#and#how#they#intended#those#
words#to#be#interpreted.#The#Defendants#admitted#that#they#said#these#things#
in#order#to#injure#Plaintiff.##The#Defendants#even#testified#that#they#meant#
that#Plaintiff#was#a#criminal#pedophile#who#should#be#in#prison.#Despite#that,#

this#Court#erroneously#ruled#that#Plaintiff#had#not#presented#any#evidence#of#
what#the#Defendants#had#done.###
5. The#Court#erred#in#stating#that#Plaintiff#had#to#prove#damages.##In#cases#of#
defamation#per#se,#damages#are#presumed.##See#Presumed$Damages$in$
Defamation$Law,#William#Mitchell#Law#Review#(2013).##Again,#the#seminal#
case#on#this#is#Longebehn$v.$Schoenrock,#which#was#reversed#on#appeal#three$
times$resulting#in#four#trials,#all#because#the#trial#judge#misapplied#the#law#on#
per#se#defamation#when#the#defendant#called#the#plaintiff,#Pat#the#
Pedophile#in#a#single#telephone#conversation.##The#appeal#court#ruled,#as#
Plaintiff#in#the#instant#case#argued#at#trial,#that#calling#someone#a#pedophile#
was#per#se#defamation#and,#as#such,#the#plaintiff#did#not#have#to#prove#
damages#because#damages#and#harm#are#presumed.##Once#it#is#shown#that#a#
defendant#called#a#plaintiff#a#pedophile,#the#jury#has#to#be#given#a#special#
verdict#form#where#it#can#award#damages#over#and#above#actual#damages.###
6. In#short,#the#Defendants#repeated#publications#and#statements#calling#
Plaintiff#a#pedophile,#rapist#and#abuser#are# defamatory#per$ se.$See,$ Carter$ v.$
Aramark$ Sports$and$Entertainment$ Services,$ Inc.,$ 153#Md.#App.# 210,# 238,#
835#A.2d# 262,# 278# (2003).##The#Courts#ruling#in#this#case#is#contrary#to#all#
reported#case#law#and#was#based#on#a#misunderstanding#of#per#se#
defamation.##Plaintiff#did#not#have#to#prove#falsity,#harm#or#damages.##Instead,#
he#only#had#to#present#evidence#that#the#Defendants#said#the#defamatory#
statements#accusing#Plaintiff#of#being#a#pedophile,#rape,#abuse,#and#engaging#

in#pedophilia.##Once#he#made#that#showing,#Plaintiff#was#entitled#to#have#the#
case#submitted#to#the#jury#to#determine#the#amount#of#damages.###
7. This#Court#should#grant#a#new#trial#on#this#issue#in#order#to#allow#Plaintiff#to#
present#his#case#with#a#proper#application#of#the#law.##If#a#new#trial#is#not#
granted,#this#case#will#be#reversed#on#appeal#EE#as#was#Longbehn$three$times$MM$
which#will#result#in#a#new#trial.##This#Court#should#correct#its#own#error#
rather#than#expending#valuable#appellate#resources#on#an#issue#unanimously#
agreed#by#courts#across#the#country.##As#the#Longbehn#court#noted,#
respondent#has#cited#no#case,#and#our#research#has#revealed#none,#holding#
that#calling#a#person#a#pedophile#could#be#understood#by#a#reasonable#person#
to#be#anything#but#defamatory#per#se.##
II#
The&Court&Erred&By&Not&Applying&The&Proper&Law&Regarding&False&Light&
Invasion&Of&Privacy&&
&
&&&&&Plaintiff#alleged#in#Count#IV#that#the#Defendants#came#to#court#hearings#
involving#Plaintiffs#private#family#matters,#including#a#mental#health#issue#
involving#a#family#member,#and#then#exploited#that#private#matter#in#order#to#
place#Plaintiff#in#a#false#light##i.e.,#calling#him#a#pedophile,#rapist,#and#abuser.###
This#Court#ruled#erroneously#that#Plaintiff#did#not#present#any#evidence#that#
the#Defendants#presented#him#in#a#false#light.###
8. First,#Plaintiff#did#present#such#evidence#at#trial.##The#Defendants,#who#were#
called#to#the#stand#by#Plaintiff,#testified#that#they#appeared#at#court#hearings#
involving#Plaintiffs#private#family#matters,#that#they#inserted#themselves#in#
those#private#family#matters,#and#that#they#recklessly#published#statements#

that#placed#Plaintiff#in#a#false#light#that#would#be#highly#offensive#to#a#
reasonable#person.##Several#of#the#Defendants#testified#that#based#on#those#
court#hearings,#they#published#statements#calling#Plaintiff#a#pedophile,#rapist#
and#abuser.##None#of#these#statements#was#true#yet#they#were#made#
intentionally#in#order#to#place#Plaintiff#in#a#false#light#and#invade#his#privacy.###
9. The#Defendants#also#testified#that#they#appropriated#Plaintiffs#likeness#by#
placing#his#photograph#on#a#depiction#of#a#Pedophile#Bear#and#publishing#
that#graphic#scores#of#times#on#various#blogs#and#Twitter#accounts.##
10. In#Maryland,#the#tort#of#false#light#invasion#of#privacy#is#defined#as:#
One#who#gives#publicity#to#a#matter#concerning#another#that#places#the#
other#before#the#public#in#a#false&light#is#subject#to#liability#to#the#other#
for#invasion#of#his#privacy,#if#
(a)#the#false&light#in#which#the#other#person#was#placed#would#be#highly#
offensive#to#a#reasonable#person,#and#
(b)#the#actor#had#knowledge#of#or#acted#in#reckless#disregard#as#to#the#falsity#
of#the#publicized#matter#and#the#false&light#in#which#the#other#would#be#
placed.Bagwell#v.#Peninsula#Reg'l#Med.#Ctr.,#665#A.2d#297,#318#(Md.#Ct.#
Spec.#App.#1995)#(quoting#Restatement#(Second)#of#Torts##652E#(1977)).#
#
11. There#are#four#different#kinds#of#invasions#of#privacy:#
"#652A.#Meaning#of#Invasion#of#Privacy#
The#Right#of#Privacy#is#Invaded#When#There#Is#
(a)#Unreasonable#intrusion#upon#the#seclusion#of#another,#*#*#*#
(b)#Appropriation#of#the#other's#name#or#likeness,#*#*#*#
(c)#Unreasonable#publicity#given#to#the#other's#private#life,#*#*#*#
(d)#Publicity#which#unreasonably#places#the#other#in#a#false#light#before#the#
public,#*#*#*#*."#

The#text#writers#and#authorities#make#it#clear#that#an#invasion#of#the#right#of#
privacy#by#anyone#of#the#above#four#courses#of#conduct#may#give#rise#to#a#
cause#of#action#and,#on#occasion,#there#may#be#an#overlapping#or#concurrent#
invasion#by#any#or#all#of#the#above#means#working#toward#the#injury#of#the#
plaintiff.#Restatement#Second,#652A,#Comment#d.#[252#Md.#at#537E538].#Cited#
in$Kilpa$v.$Board$of$Education,#460#A.2d#601,#54#Md.#App.#644#(1983).#
#
12. In#the#instant#case,#the#Defendants#unreasonably#intruded#on#Plaintiffs#
privacy,#they#appropriated#his#likeness,#they#unreasonably#gave#publicity#to#
Plaintiffs#private#life,#and#these#actions#placed#Plaintiff#in#a#false#light.###
13. This#Court#should#grant#a#new#trial#in#order#to#correct#its#error#regarding#the#
invasion#of#privacy#by#Defendants#that#placed#Plaintiff#in#a#false#light.###
III&
The&Court&Failed&To&Follow&Maryland&Law&Regarding&Directed&Verdicts&
&
14. In#ruling#upon#a#motion#for#a#directed#verdict,#the#court#must#resolve#all##
#
#evidentiary#conflicts#and#inferences#that#may#naturally#and#legitimately#be#
deduced#therefrom#in$favor$of$the$plaintiff's$right$to$recover.#Plitt$v.$
Greenberg,#242#Md.#359,#219#A.2d#237#(1966);#Langville$v.$Glen$Burnie$Coach$
Lines,$Inc.,#233#Md.#181,#195#A.2d#717#(1963);#Smith$v.$Bernfeld,#226#Md.#400,#
174#A.2d#53#(1961).#The#Court#of#Appeals#in#the#case#of#Plitt$v.$Greenberg,$
supra,#stated:#
This#Court#has#always#maintained#that#if#there#be#any#legally#relevant#and#
competent#evidence,#however#slight,#from#which#a#rational#mind#could#infer#a#
fact#in#issue,#then#a#trial#court#has#invaded#the#province#of#the#jury#by#
declaring#a#directed#verdict.#Geschwendt$v.$Yoe,#174#Md.#374,#381,#198#A.#
720#651*651#(1938);#Hanrahan$v.$Baltimore,#114#Md.#517,#535,#80#A.#312#
(1911)#and#prior#Maryland#cases#cited#therein.#Judge#Horney,#for#the#Court,#

in#Smack$v.$Jackson,#238#Md.#35,#37,#207#A.2d#511#(1965)#stated#the#rule#
succinctly#when#he#said:#"[A]#party#is#not#entitled#to#a#directed#verdict#in#his#
favor#unless#the#facts#and#circumstances#are#such#as#to#permit#of#only#one#
inference#with#regard#to#the#issue#presented."#[242#Md.#at#368].#
#

15. In#the#instant#case,#Plaintiff#presented#overwhelming#evidence#to#show#that#
the#Defendants#defamed#him#by#calling#him#a#pedophile,#rapist,#and#abuser.##
That#evidence#came#in#the#form#of#blog#posts,#tweets#and#oral#
pronouncements#by#the#Defendants.##It#came#from#the#Defendants#own#
testimony.##This#was#legally#relevant#and#competent#evidence#that#a#rational#
juror#could#infer#a#fact#in#issue#(that#the#Defendants#defamed#Plaintiff).###
16. Moreover,#Plaintiff#presented#relevant#evidence#that#the#Defendants#invaded#
his#privacy#by#publishing#private#information#and#maliciously#twisting#a#
court#hearing#involving#a#private#family#matter#into#published#accusations#of#
spousal#abuse,#pedophilia,#and#rape.##This#evidence#included#the#Defendants#
own#testimony#and#their#published#statements.##
17. This#Court#invaded#the#province#of#the#jury#by#resolving#the#case,#evidence#
and#inferences#in#favor#of#the#Defendants.##This#Court#did#not#resolve#a#single#
issue#in#favor#of#Plaintiff,#as#required#by#Maryland#law..###
18. This#Court#should#grant#a#new#trial#in#order#to#correct#its#error#with#regard#to#
its#directed#verdict#and#to#save#the#Court#of#Appeals#the#time#and#resources#it#
would#expend#granting#Plaintiff#a#new#trial.###
#####WHEREFORE,#for#all#the#above#reasons,#this#Court#should#grant#Plaintiff#a#new#
trial#on#Counts#III#and#IV.###
#

Respectfully#submitted,#

#
##
&
#
#

Brett#Kimberlin#