BRETT KIMBERLIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND v.

GREENBELT DIVISION NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, et al., Defendants Case No. 13-CV-03059-PWG

DEFENDANT HOGES REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HOGES TWO LATEST FILINGS

COMES NOW Defendant William Hoge replying to Plaintiffs Response to Defendant Hoges Two Latest Filings (ECF No. 49) (Plaintiffs Opposition). In reply Mr. Hoge states the following:

SUMMARY

Plaintiffs Opposition, in spite of his calling it a Response, is, in fact, an opposition filed against two motions submitted by Defendant Hoge, Defendant Hoges Motion for Amended Report of Status of Service (ECF No. 28) (Motion for Amended Report) and Defendant Hoges Motion to Strike Multiple Filings by Plaintiff (ECF No. 39) (Motion to

Strike). Plaintiff does not attempt to rebut any of the points made in Mr. Hoges two motions. Instead, he engages in an irrelevant ad hominem attack on Mr. Hoge, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing germane to the instant lawsuit or the motions. As this Court said in Ball-Rice v. Board of Education of P.G. County, Case No. 11-CV-1398, Memorandum Opinion ECF No. 58, (D. Md. 2013): Nonetheless, it should be evident that Plaintiff's failure to oppose the motion leaves Defendant's arguments uncontested in such a way that may affect the ultimate outcome. Plaintiffs failure to contest these issues should settle all factual questions to his detriment, and, therefore, the Court should grant appropriate relief to Mr. Hoge.

PLAINTIFF DOES NOT CONTEST ALLEGATIONS OF SERIOUS MALFEASANCE

Plaintiff has made no effort in any of his filings, including Plaintiffs Opposition, to contest any of the following facts alleged by Mr. Hoge and others: 1. The mailing to Mr. McCain referenced in paragraph 3 of the Motion for Amended Report appears to be forged. 2. Plaintiff filed two different versions of a Certified Mail green card as exhibits in the related state lawsuit, casting doubt on the authenticity of the evidence proffered in Plaintiffs Status Report Re Service of Complaint (ECF No. 27). 3. Plaintiff failed to properly serve by means of Certified Mail, Return Receipt

Requested, Restricted Delivery, those Defendants he claimed were located in California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Virginia, and West Virginia, and that, therefore, such claimed service was defective. 4. Plaintiff failed to serve Defendant Hoge a copy of his Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Respond to Pending Motions by Defendants (ECF No.18) in an attempt to prejudice Mr. Hoges ability to oppose said motion. 5. Plaintiff failed to provide timely service to Defendant Hoge of the four court papers referenced1 in the Motion to Strike. In effect, Plaintiff concedes that all these allegations are true sub silentio.

PLAINTIFF MISREPRESENTS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS

Plaintiff misrepresents the contents of Defendant Hoges Motion to Strike. In his opening unnumbered paragraph Plaintiff writes that the Motion to Strike seeks to have the case dismissed against four defendants because Mr. Hoge did not receive his copies of Plaintiffs responses in the mail. The Motion to Strike does not seek that relief. Although Mr. Hoge would be pleased if the Court were to dismiss the instant lawsuit (against all Defendants and with prejudice), the Motion to Strike simply asks that the Plaintiffs four filings referenced in the motion be struck.

ECF Nos. 29, 30, 31, and 32.

3

Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Opposition is one false allegation piled on top of another. In an attempt to explain his untimely service, he falsely alleges that the USPS left a notice at Mr. Hoges residence for the package Plaintiff mailed with service of the four items referred to in the Motion to Strike. Mr. Hoge has never receive such a notice. Plaintiff has no evidence that such a notice was left. Plaintiff proffers what he claims is a copy of the returned envelope in his Exhibit C. Assuming that he has provided a true and correct copyand there is no reason why the Court should make that assumption2 Plaintiffs own exhibit shows that the mail was sent to the wrong address. The envelope is addressed to 29 Ridge Road. Mr. Hoge resides at 20 Ridge Road. Since no signature was required for delivery, the package would have been left in the mailbox at Mr. Hoges residence if it had been sent to the correct address, but the USPS tracking information included in Plaintiffs Exhibit C shows that the Post Office found the mail was Undeliverable as Addressed. The tracking information also shows that a notice was left at 9:55 am, two minutes after mail sorting was completed at 9:53 am. That brief time span suggests that the notice would have been left somewhere at the Post Office. In paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Opposition he alleges that Mr. Hoge did not go to the Post Office in search of the missing mail, saying that the reason Mr. Hoge did not go was that Mr. Hoge had obtained copies of the missing items from another Defendant or from

Every document submitted by Plaintiff should be considered suspect. He is a convicted document forger who has not contested evidence that he has forged documents related to the instant lawsuit.
2

PACER. As noted in the Motion to Strike, Mr. Hoge obtained copies from PACER when they were posted five days after Plaintiffs notice and three oppositions were filed. That five-day delay was prejudicial to Mr. Hoges ability to file a timely reply. Plaintiff has no way of knowing whether his conclusory allegation in paragraph 6 is true, and, in fact, it is false. On 25 January, 2014, Mr. Hoge became aware of Plaintiffs claim to have sent the service by mail.3 He went to the Westminster Post Office that morning seeking the package. No mail was being held for him or for his address. Mr. Hoge asked that an investigation be opened into the matter. In Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Opposition he falsely alleges that Mr. Hoge refuses to accept electronic service because of fear that Plaintiff will infect his computer with malware and hack his computer. Mr. Hoge has never made any such statement.

PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTS TO DISTRACT THE COURT FROM HIS FALSEHOODS

In paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Opposition he writes that Defendant Hoge falsely accuses Plaintiff of things that Plaintiff cant even understand. Plaintiff has no idea what he is complaining about. Mr. Hoge did not realize that his writing was so obscure. On the other hand, an alternate explanation for Plaintiffs statement is that the Motion for

This information was found from an Internet posting by Plaintiffs associate Bill Schmalfeldt. Schmalfeldts post was in response to news published by Mr. Hoge that he had found the court papers in question on PACER.
3

Amended Report and the Motion to Strike are sufficiently clear and that the Plaintiff is simply playing dumb. In paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Opposition he writes of wild allegations, many which are impossible to comprehend, [made] in order to harass Plaintiff. There are a couple of points in that assertion which should be addressed. First, it is true that some of the allegations made by various Defendants concerning Plaintiff seem wild. That does not mean they are not true. Plaintiff is a statistical anomaly. Not many people have done time for perjury while still a teenager. Not many people have been caught smuggling over five tons of marijuana by air. Not many people have been sentenced to 50 years for a string of bombings. Not many people have got their names on NPR and in Doonesbury by claiming to be a Vice-Presidents dope dealer.4 Furthermore, the Court should consider Plaintiffs present allegations in light of the description of his outrageous behavior entered into evidence during the litigation over his parole revocation. See Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F.Supp.2d 487 (D. Md. 1998). Plaintiff is well off one edge of the bell curve, so it should not be surprising that there are wildly bizarre things to report about him.5 Plaintiff is also one of the few people who knows what the Seal of the President of the United States tastes like. FBI Agent Lucas ... had been called to a printing establishment. He observed defendant [Brett Kimberlin] wearing clothing with badges and insignia. The insignia was identical to that of the Security Police of the Defense Department. Defendant had in hand a facsimile of the Presidential Seal and other documents, one or more of which he attempted to chew up. U.S. v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210, 228 (7th Cir. 1986).
4

His authorized biography is titled Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin (Mark Singer, Knoff, New York, 1996). The book documents the events cited prior to Dewalt.
5

Second, Plaintiff seems to believe that writing truthful things about himor even merely responding to the allegations he makes in his Amended Complaint and his oppositions to the motions to dismissis harassment. While his belief may explain his virulent anti-First-Amendment activities, it has no basis in facts or law. Plaintiff brings up non-germane matters as part of his attempt at distraction. In paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Opposition he rehashes his fanciful allegations concerning harassment of the Howard County States Attorneys Office. His Exhibit A speaks for itself, and nothing it says remotely approaches the standard for incitement in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). This is the third time Plaintiff has brought up this alleged harassment of a third party, and he has yet to show how a peaceful attempt to publicize an instance of apparent misfeasance by an elected official relates to the instant lawsuit in any way. In paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Opposition he discusses a situation where Mr. Hoge was the victim of harassment. The reporter cited is an adjudicated harasser Bill Schmalfeldt, who is the subject of a peace order obtained by Mr. Hoge because of Schmalfeldts harassment.6 Schmalfeldt is an associate of Plaintiff and functions as his public relations mouthpiece on the Internet, often publishing factual claims made by Plaintiff or the details of his court papers before they have been served on any Defendant

Hoge v. Schmalfeldt, Case No. 06C13063359 (Md. Cir.Ct. Carr.Co. 2013). Peace order granted 14 June, 2013; six-month extension granted 9 December, 2013.
6

or have appeared on PACER. Plaintiff does not explain why Mr. Hoges being a victim of harassment by Schmalfeldt has any bearing on the instant lawsuit or either motion. In paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Opposition he complains that Mr. Hoge sends copies of these delusional motions to all the other defendants[.] Mr. Hoge admits that Plaintiffs allegation that he endeavors to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a) is true. Plaintiff complains that Mr. Hoge presents news about the instant lawsuit, including posting public court documents, on Hogewash!, Mr. Hoges website. Publishing such news is exactly the sort of activity protected by the First Amendment freedom of the press clause. Plaintiff cannot expect his suit to go forward hidden from public view. Plaintiff also complains that Defendant Hoge publishes requests for donations from his readers in order to help with the expenses of defending the instant lawsuit. That!is!a!lie. Mr. Hoge has occasionally referred his readers to the Bomber Sues Bloggers website7 that accepts donations for defense of the related state lawsuit, but he has never solicited any particular donations in connection with the instant lawsuit. Plaintiff also falsely alleges that Mr. Hoge has told his readers that he is going to have Plaintiff jailed[.] Mr. Hoge has never made any such statement on his website.

The Bomber Sues Bloggers legal defense fund solicits donations to help pay the legal expenses of the defendants in the parallel Maryland lawsuit, Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont.Co.) The fund operates the website http:// www.bombersuesbloggers.com. The defendants are relying on pro bono counsel in that lawsuit. The piddling amount of money raised thus far will probably be insufficient to cover the cost of transcripts, depositions, travel, etc., for persons other than the defendants.
7

Finally, Plaintiff says of Defendant Hoges Motion for Amended Report and Motion to Strike that [r]esponding to these is a huge waste of time and judicial resource. Just so, but not in the sense Plaintiff means. It was Plaintiff who filed the instant frivolous and vexatious lawsuit. It was Plaintiff who botched service of process and filed a misleading report with the Court. It was Plaintiff who did not send timely service to Mr. Hoge. All of the paperwork involved in the instant vexatious lawsuit stems from Plaintiffs actions. And, yes, the whole exercise has been and continues to be a huge waste of time. Plaintiff thus gives the Court another reason to dismiss the instant lawsuit with prejudice in favor of all Defendants.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Defendant Hoge asks this Honorable Court to take note of that Plaintiff has not rebutted any of the points made by Mr. Hoge in his Motion for Amended Report and in his Motion to Strike and, therefore, to consider Mr. Hoges allegations of facts as true and his points of law as correct. Further, Mr. Hoge asks that the relief sought in those motions be granted.