William John Joseph Hoge, IN THE

Plaintiff, CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
v.
Case No. 06-C-16-070789
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO THE KIMBERLIN DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR

CONTEMPT (DOCKET NO. 138/0) AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and opposes the Kimberlin

Defendants Motion for Contempt (Docket Item. 138/0) and moves the Court

sanction the Kimberlins for their attempted fraud on the Court. In opposition to the

Kimberlins motion and support of his cross-motion Mr. Hoge states as follows:

The Kimberlins Motion falsely states that Mr. Hoge used a forged transcript

in this case. The Kimberlins attached two transcript extracts to their motion; their

exhibit labeled with a handwritten A appears to be a copy of the transcript extract

which Mr. Hoge provided to Tetyana Kimberlin as part of a Request for Admissions

of Facts and Genuineness of Documents. Mr. Hoge denies that the extract he

submitted was forged. He avers that it is a true and accurate copy derived from the

transcript PDF file of Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V (Md. Cir.Ct.

Mont. Co. 2016) provide by Deposition Service, Inc.

A certified extract containing a copy of page 65 from the bound trial

transcript on file with the Court of Special Appeals is attached as Exhibit A. Lines

16 through 25 from the Kimberlins version, Mr. Hoges version, and the certified
copy are reproduced together in Exhibit B. As the Court can see, Mr. Hoges version

of the transcript is consistent with the bound version in the trial docket. It is the

Kimberlins version which is different. Thus, it appears the Kimberlins have again

been caught improperly proffering an altered document to a court, and the Court

should deny their Motion seeking a show cause order.

This is not the first time Brett Kimberlin has presented an altered document

to a court. See Exhibits C and D. In fact, their Motion for Sanctions is not the first

time altered document the Kimberlins have presented an altered document to this

Court in this case.1 The Kimberlins have previously told the Court that they were

ordering a copy of the trial transcript from Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. to use as

evidence in this lawsuit. Docket Item 105/2, 3. Deposition Service would have

provided them with exactly the same transcript as provided to Mr. Hoge. Thus,

they had the same version as Mr. Hoge in hand and knew that what he had

provided was the same as the docket transcript. Even if that version contains an

error and should be corrected, it is false to state that certified transcript in the

Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. case docket is a forgery. The Kimberlins motion has put

a needless controversy before the Court, and they have done so using fraudulent

means. The Kimberlins should be sanctioned for such behavior.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to deny the Kimberlins Motion for

Contempt (Docket Item 138/0), to sanction the Kimberlins for their attempt to

1For example, the version Mr. Hoges 17 April, 2017, blog post included as an
exhibit in the Kimberlins Motion for Sanctions (Docket Item 137/0) has been
altered. See Opposition to Motion for Sanctions (Docket Item 137/1), Ex. B and C.

2
perpetrate a fraud on the Court, and to grant such other relief as it may find just

and proper.

Date: 26 April, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
(410) 596-2854
himself@wjjhoge.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 26th day of April, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing
on the following persons:

William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 422 3rd Avenue North, Clinton,
Iowa 52732

Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817

Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817

Breitbart Unmasked by First Class U. S. Mail c/o William Schmalfeldt, Editor, 422
3rd Avenue North, Clinton, Iowa 52732

William John Joseph Hoge

AFFIDAVIT

I, William John Joseph Hoge, 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.

Date: 26 April, 2017

William John Joseph Hoge

3
 Exhibit A
Certified extract of Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V, Trial
Transcript (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Oct. 14, 2016) at 65 from the case docket at the
Maryland Court of Appeals.
 Exhibit B
Lines 16 through 25 from the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. trial transcript.

From top to bottom:

Kimberlins Version (Kimberlins B)

Mr. Hoges Version (Kimberlins A)

Certified Version in the trial docket at the Maryland Court of Special Appeals
 65

1 than our disagreements. I will briefly state that I have

2 alleged that Mr. Kimberlin is an accomplice to Tetyana

3 Kemberlin in reference to the 2015 charges. I don't think

Kimberlins Version
4 there's any room for doubt on that point. He said he wrote

5 them by hand. He said that he helped her generate the content

6 and I don't think he would have any -- and he went there with

7 the intent as he said for them to file jointly somehow and

8 discovered they just don't do that there. They only want one

9 person to declare at a time.

10 I will save this stuff on damages for obvious

11 reasons. And so I do want to thank you for your time this

12 week. I want to thank you for your patience. And I want to

13 thank you for your time and consideration. And I'm done.

14 THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Kimberlin or for the

Mr. Hoges Version
15 defense you have, as I say, 45 minutes total time.

16 CLOSING ARGUMENT BY TETYANA KIMBERLIN, PRO SE

17 THE DEFENDANT

18 Good morning. I made some notes last night and I

19 just finished it. I just want to say I'm the mother of Kelsie

20 and Karina Kimberlin and you know, any mother would lie to give

21 their children the best life they could ever have or even their

22 parents had and any mother would lie to protect their child

23 from anything or from anyone. On May 18th, 2015, I filed the

24 criminal charges because, you know, my child being attacked on

25 the internet because of this political game. And I have two

Certified Version
 Exhibit C
Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al., Case No. 13-CV-3059-GJH,
Response to Show Cause Order, ECF No. 102 (D.Md. Mar. 11, 2014). This contains
Brett Kimberlins admission that he forged a summons in the this case.
 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 102 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 3

('
. '.,-,
, .. I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GREENBELT DIVISION

BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,

v. No. PWG 13 3059

NATIONAL BLOGGERSCLUB,et al
Defendants.

VERIFIED RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 21,2014 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re

TWITCHY SUMMONS

Now comes Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin and responds to this Court's Order to

Show Cause regarding service on Defendant Twitchy.

1. Plaintiff has apologized to counsel for Defendant Twitchy on several

occasions for the mistake he made when serving Twitchy. Plaintiff explained

to counsel that the mistake was not in any way done with an intent to

mislead. Instead, it was a misunderstanding of the process, which Plaintiff as

a pro se litigant did not understand, but now understands full well.

2. Plaintiff did include Defendant Twitchy in the Complaint in several

paragraphs as a named Defendant but Plaintiff inadvertently left Twitchy off

the caption. As soon as counsel for Twitchy notified Plaintiff about the error

in service, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Correct Caption to add Twitchy, which

this Court granted in its Letter Order of February 21, 2014. The Court also

found that Twitchy was not prejudiced by the error in service.

3. When the Clerk initially sent Plaintiff 21 summons, Plaintiff spent hours

compiling them with the Complaints, the envelopes and certified cards only
 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 102 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 3

to discover that the summons for Twitchy was missing. At the time, Plaintiff

assumed that the Clerk had inadvertently forgotten to include that summons

since Twitchy was named as a Defendant in the Complaint and Twitchy's

address was listed in paragraph 25 of the Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff

typed the address on a summons and included it with the Complaint to

Defendant Twitchy and sent it certified to that address.

4. Plaintiff has since discussed this with the Clerk of the Court and was told that

a summons can only be filled out by a party using Form A0440 and then

submitted to the Clerk for signature.

5. Plaintiff apologizes once again to Defendant Twitchy and counsel, and to the

Court for this misunderstanding. Plaintiff assures the Court that this will not

occur again. In fact, with today's filing, Plaintiff is submitting six A0440

Summons Forms to the Clerk for signature so Plaintiff can initiate service of

the Second Amended Complaint to several of the Defendants named in that

Complaint who have not yet accepted service.

6. Plaintiff urges this Court not to impose sanctions on Plaintiff since this was

an honest mistake, he is proceeding pro se and was unaware of the proper

procedure, he has learned from the mistake, he has apologized to all parties,

and Defendant Twitchy was not prejudiced.

Respectfully submitted,

Brett Ki in
8100 Beech Tree Rd
Bethesda, MD 20817
(301) 320 5921
justjcejtmp@comcast.net
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 102 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 3

Verification

I Brett Kimberlin certify under penalty of perjury pursuant to the

provisions of 28 USC1746, that the above is true and corr

Dated this 11day of March, 2014 Brett Ki

Certificate of Service

I certify that I have served a copy of this Response on Lee Stranahan, Ron

Coleman, Catilyn Contestable, Michael Smith, and Mark Bailen by email, and

on Defendants Hoge, The Franklin Center, McCain and Walker by First Class

mail this 11th day of March, 2014.

Brett Kimberlin
 Exhibit D
Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al., Case No. 13-CV-3059-GJH,
Supplemental Memorandum, ECF No. 124 (D.Md. Apr. 28, 2014). This
memorandum cites Brett Kimberlins admission to altering a Certified Mail green
card used as proof of service of process in Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No.
380966V, Hearing Transcript (Md. Cir.Ct Mont. Co, Apr. 9, 2014). The entire
hearing transcript is attached to the memorandum.
 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124 Filed 04/28/14 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GREENBELT DIVISION

BRETT KIMBERLIN, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * Civil Action
PWG 13-3059
NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, et al., *

Defendants *

* * * * * * * * * *

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANTS MICHELLE MALKIN AND

TWITCHY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL (ECF No. 41)

Michael F. Smith
The Smith Appellate Law Firm
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1025
Washington, D.C. 20006
smith@smithpllc.com
(202) 454-2860
Bar No. 29941
Counsel for Defendants
Michelle Malkin and Twitchy

Date: April 28, 2014

 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124 Filed 04/28/14 Page 2 of 5

Mr. Kimberlin has pending a Maryland state-court action against various defendants in this case,

though not Mrs. Malkin or Twitchy. Kimberlin v. Walker et al., Montgomery Cir. Case No. 380966. At

an April 9, 2014 oral argument on defendant Ali Akbar's motion to dismiss that case, he admitted

altering a Postal Service return-of-service card in connection with his purported service of the complaint

on Mr. Akbar, to indicate he had requested "restricted delivery" before filing it with the court:

THE COURT: Did you alter the return receipts between docket entry 38 and 50
whatever, did you change them?

MR. KIMBERLIN: I did not change them intentionally. When I go to the post office, I
ask them to do it so it's registered or whatever it's called, restricted
delivery, and they did not do it. [Defendant Akbar is] saying that
there's an extra fee. I've never paid an extra fee for restricted
delivery. I've sent literally 50 or 100 of these things and never
once faked a [unintelligible] restricted delivery, but, you know,
Mr. Akbar here sitting right there that this was sent in January 2nd
to Mr. Akbar. It came back, it's restricted delivery. This one here
is January 25th, again, Mr. Akbar came back restricted delivery,
you know, undeliverable. And you know he keeps accusing me of
not paying the extra fee.

THE COURT: This isn't about paying a fee.

MR. KIMBERLIN: That's what he said.

THE COURT: This is about the exact same brief green card being filed -- the
support motions you filed, the different docket entries, one
showing the restricted delivery box checked and one not.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor, like I said I asked the post office to send it restricted
delivery.

THE COURT: You're not answering my question.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, I changed --

THE COURT: Did you change it?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, I did.

1
 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124 Filed 04/28/14 Page 3 of 5

THE COURT: And then you filed it representing that it accurately reflected the
green card that had been filled out.

MR. KIMBERLIN: No, no, no, I filed it and accurately said -- it accurately reflected
what I told the post office to do and that's what it is. You know,
like I said I'm a pro se litigant and --

THE COURT: Don't even use that with me.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay, okay --

THE COURT: You know it's one thing to say I'm pro se so I don't understand
rules or I don't understand how to get something in and the rules of
evidence and another thing to alter something and file it.... [Ex A,
TR 4/9/14, pp 21-23 (emphasis added)].

DISCUSSION

I. Mr. Kimberlin's statements show a pattern of misconduct that undermines his defense of
inadvertent pro se mistake, and supports dismissal and/or a significant monetary sanction.

After first ignoring the allegations regarding the Twitchy summons, ECF 67, Mr. Kimberlin

admitted forging it but offered this Court various excuses, including his pro-se status. ECF 102

Response. But as his comments to the state court show, Mr. Kimberlin's falsification of the summons is

part of a pattern of similar litigation misconduct that vitiates the defense he has proffered here.

In the state court, as in this Court, Mr. Kimberlin when caught in misconduct sought refuge

behind his pro-se status. Ex A, TR 4/9/14, pp. 14, 22; also ECF 102 Response, pp. 1-2. In both courts,

he claimed his action was necessitated by a public employee's improbable neglect of his or her routine

duties. Ex A, TR 4/9/14, pp. 21-22 (postal clerk failed to honor his request for restricted delivery); ECF

102 Response, pp. 1-2 (deputy clerk of this Court failed to issue Twitchy summons). In both courts he

assumed a chastened air and said he had learned his lesson but only after a defendant was forced to

expend resources exposing his conduct, and extracting an admission of wrongdoing. Ex A, TR 4/9/14,

pp. 22, 25 ("I understand"); ECF 102 Response, pp. 1-2 (private session with Clerk for summons

2
 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124 Filed 04/28/14 Page 4 of 5

instruction). And in each court he has blamed the victim of his unsuccessful deception for complaining

about it. Ex A, TR 4/9/14, pg. 22 (criticizing Mr. Akbar for supposedly objecting that he failed to pay

for restricted delivery); ECF 111-1 Response, pg. 1 (Twitchy is being "petty" and "wasting the court's

time" in continuing to seek dismissal and sanctions).

This Court's inherent authority "extends to a full range of litigation abuses," Chambers v. Nasco,

Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46 (1991), and a pattern of litigation misconduct may justify dismissal under it.

Vargas v. Peltz, 901 F. Supp. 1572, 1579-82 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (persistent pattern of misconduct by

plaintiff and her husband that amounted to fraud on the court, including fabrication of evidence, perjury,

and repeated false deposition testimony) (collecting cases); Riverside Mem. Mausoleum, Inc. v.

Sonnenblick-Goldman Corp., 80 F.R.D. 433, 435-436 (E.D. Pa. 1978) (dismissal justified by plaintiff's

pattern of ignoring court orders and deadlines). The April 9 hearing transcript establishes such a pattern,

and shows that falsification of the Twitchy summons was no innocent or accidental pro-se mistake. It

warrants the strongest possible sanction, up to and including dismissal.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael F. Smith

Michael F. Smith
The Smith Appellate Law Firm
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1025
Washington, D.C. 20006
smith@smithpllc.com
(202) 454-2860
Bar No. 29941
Counsel for Defendants Michelle Malkin
and Twitchy
Date: April 28, 2014

3
 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124 Filed 04/28/14 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Supplemental Memorandum and its Ex

A was electronically filed in this case on April 28, 2014 and thus served on counsel of record via the

Court's ECF system. Additionally, I am serving the document via email this date on plaintiff Kimberlin

and on defendants Hoge, McCain, and Walker by the express permission of each.

By: /s/ Michael F. Smith

Dated: April 28, 2014

4
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 1 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 2 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 3 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 4 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 5 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 6 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 7 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 8 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 9 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 10 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 11 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 12 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 13 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 14 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 15 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 16 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 17 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 18 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 19 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 20 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 21 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 22 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 23 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 24 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 25 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 26 of 27
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124-1 Filed 04/28/14 Page 27 of 27