IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CARROLL COUNTY WILLIAM HOGE Plaintiff, ve No, 06€16070789 BRETT KIMBERLIN and TETYANA KIMBERLIN, Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendants Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin hereby respond in opposition to Plaintiff's latest Motion to Compel Discovery. The motion is vexatious, without merit, and a waste of time, just like his last Motion to Compel. 1, Defendant Brett Kimberlin provided Plaintiff with hundreds of pages of discovery in open court on March 17%, Had he not done so in court, Plaintiff would be telling this Court that he did not receive any documents. Unable to make that claim, Plaintiff now asserts that Defendants have failed to adequately comply. This is without merit. 2, Plaintiffis Aaron Walker's paralegal and Defendants produced hundreds of pages of documents in the related Walker v Kimberlin case that resulted ina verdict in Defendants’ favor. Most of those documents are the same documents produced to Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff has access to those Walker documents and he also has copies of the transcripts from that trial. The issues in this case are exactly the same and are based on the same evidence. Plaintiff testified at that trial and was cross examined about many of the documents produced in this case.Plaintiff also received many of the documents during two Peace Order hearings where he was charged with stalking and harassing Defendants’ minor daughter. He was cross-examined there too. These facts, in addition to the stack of documents produced to Plaintiff in open court, which this Court stated on the record appeared to be a “three inch stack,” is quite sufficient to prepare Plaintiff for trial, 3. The documents produced are not business records and are not kept as business records. Defendants in fact are not a business. Defendants, unlike the obsessive Plaintiff, do not and will not organize and label all the documents in their possession. The pro se Defendants did not do so in the Walker case or any other case they have ever been involved. Plaintiff is being very disingenuous in saying that he does not know how the documents produced are relevant to the corresponding requests. He saw how they were used in the Walker trial and when he was under cross examination, and they will be used the same way in this trial. Plaintiffs using this Motion to Compel to further stalk and harass Defendants as he has done for years and years. 4. This Court well knows by now that this lawsuit by Plaintiffis a harassment suit that has no chance whatsoever of success. Judge Mason has already ruled that there can be no damages in such a case, and Plaintiff has not even alleged damages. So Defendants urge this Court to reject the pretense of Plaintiff that this is a legitimate lawsuit and that the pro se Defendants are supposed to expend an inordinate amount of time dealing with it using all the skills of a licensed attorney. 5. Along with the Response, Defendants are sending Plaintiff yet another copy of the CD containing the audio of two court hearings in Montgomery Countywhere the judges found that Plaintiff was not credible and engaged in child abuse and online cyberstalking that could land him in prison. 6. Plaintiff's strategy is the same as his boss, Aaron Walker. That strategy is to overwhelm the courts with motion after motion about minutia that they are not satisfied with in the hope that something, anything, will stick. In the Walker case, Walker overwhelmed the court with over 400 filings in the case, complaining about every perceived peccadillo, Plaintiffs strategy is to always claim there is something wrong with whatever Defendants file, or to assert that they are not sent correctly, or they are inadequate, thus draining more limited resources from the court and Defendants. Walker lost in Montgomery County and he is now using Plaintiff as his proxy here in the hope of undermining that jury verdict and judgment in favor of Defendants. He is using the instant case for a second bite at the apple. 7. Defendant Brett Kimberlin will never provide any driver's license to Plaintiff. Plaintiffis a stalker who associates and cavorts with known criminals engaged in fraud, identity theft, stalking and burglary. For example, (1) Ali Akbar, who burglarized a woman’s house, and then after being jailed and released on bond, broke into a truck and stole a debit card and used it to cash out from an ATM money that was not his; (2) Paul Lemmon, a federal felon who was convicted of military contracting fraud. Mr. Lemmon is now masquerading as a phony priest and continuing to seek out donations from gullible people on the Internet; (3) Paul Krendler, who recently stole the identity of another defendant in this case, Bill Schmalfeldt. He stole his Social Security number, and then used it to fraudulently login to the Wisconsin DMV to obtain personal identifying information about Mr.‘Schmalfeldt, which he then posted on the internet, which forced Mr. Schmalfeldt to have to move to once again move to another state to escape the constant stalking by Plaintiff and his criminal associates. Krendler, who may in fact be Plaintiff himself, uses Plaintiff's address for his mail. Defendants believe that Plaintiff will use Defendant Brett Kimberlin’s drivers license to commit identity theft or fraud either himself or through criminal surrogates in order to cause him to be arrested or have his credit destroyed. Moreover, the driver's license is not relevant to anything in this case, 8. Defendant Brett Kimberlin does not possess any documents related a federal parole that he was released from eons ago. Why would Defendant keep parole documents in his possession when he is not on parole or any type of supervision, has not been for years, and has no need for them for any purpose? Moreover, such parole documents from decades ago are not at all relevant to anything in this suit, 9. Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to confidential settlement documents in other cases involving Defendant Brett Kimberlin. This is absurd. Those are not relevant, and Plaintiff has not made a showing of relevance. The case he cited, Hayden b. Bullinger, 350 Md, 452 (Md. 1998), makes clear that the only time such confidential settlements are to be disclosed is where they are relevant to a matter al sue in the case, such as whether damages should be reduced because of a Prior settlement. In this case, there are no damages. Moreover, Defendant Brett Kimberlin does not have the authority to release those documents since they were sealed by the federal and state courts, and the other parties involved have the rightto seek a protective order in the event Defendant Brett Kimberlin were to be compelled to produce the settlements. This would involve at least a dozen lawyers and law firms from New York, Indiana, California, Washington DC, and Maryland. When the related Walker case was pending in Montgomery County, Walker sought the same settlement documents and Judge Mason denied that request. In fact, Walker tried to subpoena the settlement documents from one party’s attorney in Maryland, but was forced to withdraw that subpoena after being threatened with a protective order and attorney fees. 8, Plaintiff claims he assigned tracking numbers and various detailed minutia concerning discovery produced by Defendants, Then in the very next sentence he claims he can't make sense of the documents to which he assigned tracking numbers. Itis not credible that Plaintiff cannot understand what was given to him, as the same documents and more were delivered to his boss, Aaron Walker, in the exact same form in a related case in Montgomery County. Plaintiff has more than enough information and documents to conclude exactly what will be presented at trial in this case to show that he is a serial sexual predator and cyberstalker who harassed Defendants’ minor daughter. Plaintiff testified in that Walker trial, and his testimony was totally rejected by the jury and Judge Mason. The issue in that case is the same as in this case: did Defendants have probable cause to seek out law enforcement or the courts help to prevent Walker and Hoge from stalking and harassing them and their minor daughter? The answer by a jury and judge in Montgomery County was “Yes, Defendants did have probable cause to file said charges.”10. Plaintiff testified in three separate cases before three separate judges about his cyberstaking of Defendants’ minor daughter. The first judge found that he was not credible and lied under oath, the second judge stated that he engaged in “child abuse” that could land him in prison, and the jury and judge in the third case rejected every bit of his testimony when finding in favor of Defendants. Now he is coming before this Court expecting a different result by harassing the Defendants and wasting the Court's time with a vexatious motion to compel. Enough is enough. Defendants’ patience is wearing very thin and they are very tired of participating in the charade created by Plaintiff. Wherefore, this Court should deny Plaintiff's latest Motion to Compel. Respectfully submitted, Bethesda, MD 20817 (301) 3205921; justiegjtmp@comtast-n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I sent this motion to Plaintiff this March 29, 2017.Brett Kimberlin Bethesda, MD 2081: (301) 3205921 a justicejtmp@comcastnet___—~ a Go