Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and relies Tetyana Kimberlins
Opposition to His Motion for Summary Judgment and opposes the Kimberlin
I. A PRELIMINARY MATTER
There are several problems with Docket Item 144/0 as it was served on Mr.
Hoge. First, while it is styled as being from both Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin, only
Mrs. Kimberlin signed the paper. Exhibit A. Tetyana Kimberlin is not a lawyer
this matter. Second, even if Brett Kimberlin had signed the paper, he does not have
standing to argue against a motion for summary judgment against another party,
and he may not represent another party because he is not a lawyer licensed to
inadmissible, and even if it were properly signed, any evidence he wishes to bring in
via the Motion is improper because the Affidavit is not made upon personal
knowledge of an affiant shown to be competent to testify to the matters stated.
Exhibit B. Fourth, any evidence Tetyana Kimberlin wishes to bring in via her
summarily deny all of Docket Item 144/0 except that portion dealing with Mrs.
Kimberlins defense of Count XI and also should strike all of the Motions attached
exhibits.
E.
II. TETYANA KIMBERLIN HAS FAILED SHOW ANY GENUINE DISPUTE REGARDING
ANY MATERIAL FACT RELATED TO COUNT XI
Tetyana Kimberlin has failed to meet either of these requirements. She has not
identified a single genuinely disputed fact, and she has not attached any
documents, transcripts, or the like which are identified as supporting the existence
2
She has apparently given up on disputing the facts establishing that she filed
the 18 May, 2015, Application for Statement of Charges or that the resulting
entering a nolle prosequi. She seems to hang her defense upon an argument that
the allegations in her Application established probable cause to charge Mr. Hoge
with a crime, i.e., violating Md. Crim. L. 3-805(b)(2). That is not a dispute over
the contents of her Application. It is a dispute over a matter of law, i.e., whether
her statements as found in that Application created reasonable grounds for belief
that Mr. Hoge had committed a crime. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371
(2003).
that an offense has been committed. Pringle, n. 2, citing Brinegar v. U.S., 338 U.S.
Application could not properly establish probable cause. Putting sufficient facts
before a Commissioner is not the only requirement for probable cause. Those facts
Tetyana Kimberlin states in her Affidavit that her Application was true and
that the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al, Case No. 398855V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2016)
jury found her statements contained therein to be true. As can be seen in her
Exhibit C3 (at 1, 2), the Walker jury made no such finding. Given that the
3
document she provides with her Opposition shows that, once again, she is not
telling the truth, Tetyana Kimberlin cannot reasonably aver that the findings of
Walker jury are material to this case. Therefore, any dispute over this point is
immaterial and does not affect Mr. Hoges entitlement to summary judgment.
Application states that Mr. Hoge published information on the Internet which
caused Kelsie Kimberlin to be bullied, but the Application does not allege with any
specificity what Mr. Hoge said or wrote or when or where he said or wrote it 1and
nothing in the Application establishes any causal nexus between any alleged act by
Mr. Hoge and any alleged harassment of Miss Kimberlin. Tetyana Kimberlin failed
to provide any documents to support her statement because none exists. Tetyana
Kimberlin cannot reasonably aver that she identified any specific act allegedly done
by Mr. Hoge which caused any alleged bullying of her daughter or to show how such
alleged bullying was caused by any such alleged act. Therefore, there is no genuine
Tetyana Kimberlin makes statements in her Opposition ( 32, 33, and 37)
decision to charge Mr. Hoge. However, no relevant evidence is in the record, and
1 In addition to naming who, a proper allegation must specify what, when, where,
and how. E.g., Colonel Mustard murdered the victim last night in the
Conservatory with the wrench. Simply saying, Colonel Mustard is a meanie, is
insufficient.
4
dispute as to the facts relating to this point.
has exhibited a disturbing level of interest in her daughter, but she does not
specify how that interest might have been demonstrated, and she presents no
evidence showing such interest by Mr. Hoge or that such interest was expressed on
competent to testify to Mr. Hoges state of mind, and she has presented no extrinsic
evidence suggesting what his state of mind might have been. Tetyana Kimberlin
cannot reasonably aver that she has shown that Mr. Hoge has expressed any
interest in her daughter, either on the Internet or in the real world. Therefore,
her Opposition that Mr. Hoge told her that he wanted to save here daughter. Mr.
Hoge denies every having made such a statement, but even if he had, it would be
immaterial. Even if Mrs. Kimberlin were telling the truth, the statement was not
34.) so it could not have been an act which would violate3-805(b)(2). Tetyana
Kimberlin cannot reasonably aver that any such alleged statement by Mr. Hoge is
material. Therefore, any dispute over this point is immaterial and does not affect
was the recipient of an email from a third party making an accusation concerning
5
Brett Kimberlin. As the Court can see from Tetyana Kimberlins Exhibit J, the
email does not say what she says it says. Even if it did, Mr. Hoges receipt of an
email from a third party almost two years before her Application was filed is
Therefore, any dispute over this point is immaterial and does not affect Mr. Hoges
harassed Kelsie Kimberlin by monitoring her social media accounts. First, this is
contradicted by Miss Kimberlins testimony during the 14 May, 2015, peace order
hold herself out as public figure by promoting her music career. Why would she be
posting publicity videos and the like on the Internet if she were afraid that someone
might see them? Tetyana Kimberlin goes on in paragraph 35 with a long list of
conclusory allegations, all of which are denied by Mr. Hoge and none of which is
cannot reasonably aver that she established any connection between Mr. Hoges
alleged remarks and any alleged harassment of her daughter. Therefore, there is
2See Mr. Hoges Affidavit Relating to Count XI attached to his Motion for Summary
Judgment, Docket Item 136/0, d, z.
6
In paragraph 36 of Tetyana Kimberlins Opposition she offers her apparent
order hearing as an excuse for having filed the Application for Statement of
Charges. First, the judge didnt say what Mrs. Kimberlin says she said. Second, it
would have been improper for the judge to have offered legal advice from the
bench,3 and she did not do so. Tetyana Kimberlin fails to identify where in the
transcript Judge Creightons alleged remarks can be found because, as can be seen
in her Exhibit identified as D4, they arent there. Tetyana Kimberlin cannot
reasonably aver that she received any legal advice from Judge Creighton.
standard of proof she must meet in rebutting his Motion for Summary Judgment.
She did not need to completely defeat all of Mr. Hoges Complaint. All she needed to
do was show that there is a genuine dispute over one material fact related to Mr.
Hoges Complaint. As can be seen supra, she has failed to meet that minuscule
burden. She has done nothing to show that she truthfully put a single fact before
the Commissioner establishing probable cause that Mr. Hoge had violated any of
that there was sufficient truthful evidence to establish probable cause to charge Mr.
Hoge with violating Md. Crim. L. 3-805(b)(2), so there cannot be any genuine
7
dispute of material facts concerning the lack of probable cause to charge Mr. Hoge
As for the fourth element of the tort of malicious prosecution, malice, the
Maryland case law5 cited by Mr. Hoge in his Motion for Summary Judgement is
clear. The existence of malice may be inferred for the lack of probable cause. This
Opposition that have nothing to do with disputed facts. For example, she again
raises the bogus issue of res judicata based on the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al.
lawsuit which did not include Mr. Hoge as a party. She also raises litigation
to Dismiss. The Court has already ruled against the Kimberlins on these defenses,
and such arguments have no proper place in a Motion for Summary Judgment in
any case.
Mr. Hoge showed in his Motion for Summary Judgment that there is no
genuine dispute over any material fact related to Count XI of this lawsuit. On the
other hand, Tetyana Kimberlin has failed to meet her burden to show a genuine
dispute over just one material fact related to that count. The undisputed material
facts show that Tetyana Kimberlin instituted a criminal procedure against Mr.
5 Hooke v. Equitable Credit Corp., 42 Md.App. 610, 402 A.2d 110 (1979).
8
Hoge which was terminated in his favor and for which there was no probable cause
and that she acted with malice. Therefore, Mr. Hoge is entitled to judgment against
b.) [H]e has offered my mentally ill wife things of value to sign false
e.) William Hoge in July 2013, has bee stalking and harassing me by
meeting with, advising and preparing court documents for my wife Tetyana that are
false.
f.) My wife has a long history of mental illness and Mr. Hoge is taking
advantage of and exploiting that mental illness to stalk and harass me through her
g.) I have repeatedly told Mr. Hoge to leave my family and me alone
h.) He is obsessed with attacking me using the most vile and untrue
9
i.) On July 12, 2013, he helped prepare a false custody complaint against
me
j.) On July 27, 2013, he helped prepare a false protective order against
me
k.) Mr. Hoges conduct is exacerbating my wifes mental illness and pushing
her toward actions that could result in death or serious injury to my wife.
l.) He is manipulating her in a negative way that could cause her to attempt
m.) Mr. Hoge has been using the Internet, blogs, Twitter, and other
Mr. Hoge denies that he every did any of the illegal acts alleged by Brett
Kimberlin in his 30 July, 2013, Application for Statement of Charges, and there is
this Court other than his unsworn statements. Kimberlin falsely states in his
Unsigned Affidavit attached to Docket Item 144/0 that Mr. Hoge admitted that he
imaginary testimony. Kimberlin has nothing to attach because Mr. Hoge never said
any such thing. Brett Kimberlin cannot reasonably aver that Mr. Hoge ever gave
10
such testimony. Therefore, there is no genuine dispute as to the facts relating to
this point.
testimony and many of which have already been found to be false by other courts.
For example, he sued Mr. Hoge for falsely calling him a pedophile, and Mr. Hoge
won that case on the basis of truth.6 His claims that writing negative things about
him amounts to harassment have been the basis of numerous of his failed civil
actions, and his is estopped from continuing to make them. More to the point, he
has never shown any writing by Mr. Hoge that was defamatory, incited violence, or
made a true threat. His notion that it was harassment for Mr. Hoge to have
attended open court hearings and to have truthfully reported on what happened
support his allegation that Mr. Hoge manipulated Tetyana Kimberlin during a
mental health crisis. Indeed, there is no evidence in the record or offered by Brett
Kimberlin that Tetyana Kimberlin has ever suffered from any mental disorder. His
allegation that Mr. Hoge has cyberstalked Kelsie Kimberlin has been debunked in
Mr. Hoge Motion for Summary Judgment against Tetyana Kimberlin (Docket Item
136/0) and in Section II supra. He has produced no evidence that Mr. Hoge has
financed any campaign against him by Aaron Walker or that such a campaign
exists or ever existed. Mr. Hoge denies doing any of these acts, and there is no
6 Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2014).
11
evidence to the contrary. Brett Kimberlin cannot reasonably aver that Mr. Hoge
ever did any of these things. Therefore, there is no genuine dispute as to these facts
presented fabricated evidence to the Carroll County States Attorney and Sheriff.
Mr. Hoge denies ever having presented fabricated evidence to any law enforcement
agency or to any court, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Brett Kimberlin
cannot truthfully aver he has never altered evidence, and he cannot reasonably aver
that Mr. Hoge ever proffered fabricated evidence.7 Therefore, there is no genuine
2.) and to the disposition of the charge against Mr. Hoge (Motion to Dismiss,
11.). By the same analysis relating to Tetyanas liability for Count XI supra, if the
2013 Application were full of false in misleading statements to that that there was
examine, there was no probable cause to charge Mr. Hoge. Also, the same analysis
Brett Kimberlin and Mr.Hoge have a genuine dispute over the material facts
referenced in a.) through n.) supra. Therefore, there are material facts to be tried
7In fact, the Kimberlins submitted an altered version of one of Mr. Hoges blog
posts as an exhibit to their Motion for Sanctions, Docket Item 137/0, Ex. A. See also
Mr. Hoges Opposition, Docket Item 137/1 at 8-10.
12
V. EVEN IF IT WERE PROPERLY FILED, BRETT KIMBERLINS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FAILS TO SHOW ANY GENUINELY DISPUTED MATERIAL
FACTS RELATING TO COUNT VI, AND THE FACTS DO NO SUPPORT SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN BRETT KIMBERLINS FAVOR
Mr. Hoge agrees with Brett Kimberlin that there are no material facts in
dispute relating to Count VI, but facts do not support summary judgment in
Kimberlins favor.
Kimberlin admits that he sent the email which was a statement to a third
party. (Unsigned Affidavit., 10.) He has made no effort to deny its contents.
Rather, he asserts that it was not defamatory and that Mr. Hoge was not damaged
by it.
party, 2.) containing a false statement, 3.) for which the person making the
statement was at fault, and 4.) which caused damage to the defamed partynone
depend on any disputed fact. All disputed points turn on a matter of law, i.e., was
Kimberlins statement in the email purposely false and misleading in context so as to create
a false understanding in the recipient that Mr. Hoge was subject of a final peace order
based on stalking.
Yet again, Kimberlin raises the specious litigation privilege defense that the Court
has already rejected, and he has offered not new facts or cited no new law which should
13
While summary judgment as to Count VI may be appropriate, the facts do
not support judgment in Kimberlins favor, and Mr. Hoge agrees that the Court
that Plaintiff has not alleged in is Complaint that anything Defendant said to
Twitter was false. Docket Item 144/0, 18. That is flatly contrary to what is
actually alleged in the Complaint: The suspension was the result of one or more
false complaints by Brett Kimberlin alleging that Mr. Hoge had engaged in
appears to be questioning the existence of the defamatory email Mr. Hoge briefly
examined when it was proffered by Kelsie Kimberlin during the Kimberlin v. Hoge,
Case No. 9148D (Md.Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2015) peace order hearing on 14 May, 2015
or at least denying that the contents of the email were defamatory. Since Kimberlin
would not produce the email during discovery, there remain material facts to be
tried by the Court regarding that email, including its existence and the nature of its
contents.
Kimberlin offers the patently silly defense in paragraph 19 that some of his
defamatory statements about Mr. Hoge were made by filing them via an online
automated form. He seems to want the Court to believe that there is no liability for
14
making a false statement about someone via such an automated system when that
statement causes the systems corporate owner to take adverse action against the
person falsely reported on. Also, the fact that Mr. Hoge received an apology from
Brett Kimberlin and Mr. Hoge have a genuine dispute of material facts with
count.
XI applies to Brett Kimberlin because he has admitted that he is the actual author
of the Application for Statement of Charges. They are jointly liable as co-
conspirators.
There is additional evidence that Brett Kimberlins action was not motivated
by a desire to bring Mr. Hoge to justice for the alleged cyberstalking of Kelsie
Kimberlin. Rather, there is evidence Kimberlin acted out of a desire for vengeance
for his losses to Mr. Hoge in Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V (Md.
Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2014), Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al., Case No. 13-
CV-3059-GJH (D.Md. 2015), and Kimberlin v. Hoge, Case No. 9148D (Md. Cir.Ct.
15
Kimberlin was interviewed by David Weigel, a reporter for the online news
website The Daily Beast a few minutes after losing to Mr. Hoge as a result of a
directed verdict in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit. The following is from Mr.
And tomorrow, I can file another lawsuit against them. And now I
know what I need to do. Its going to be endless lawsuits for the
rest of their lives. And thats what it ends up being. I sue them.
They sue me. They come into court. I sue them. They come into
court. Thats the way it is.
Bomber, and Taylor Swift You Ever Read, The Daily Beast, http://
www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/30/the-weirdest-story-about-a-
conservative-obsession-a-convicted-bomber-and-taylor-swift-you-have-ever-read.
The full article is attached as Exhibit C. Kimberlin has thus far made good on his
promise of lawsuits for the rest of their lives for his perceived enemies. In
addition to the Kimberlin v. Walker, National Bloggers Club (I), and peace order
case cited, Kimberlin has also filed and lost two more lawsuits against Mr. Hoge
since losing Kimberlin v. Walker: Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams LLP, et al., Case
No. 15-CV-723-GJH (D.Md. 2016), affmd Case No. 16-1500 (4th Cir. 2016) and
Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (II), Case No. 403868V (Md. Cir.Ct.
Mont. Co. 2016). He has subsequently filed Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams LLP,
et al. (II), Case No. 420664V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2016) which was dismissed for
failure to state a claim and Kimberlin v. Breitbart Holdings, et al., Case No. 16-
16
CV-3855-GJH (D.Md. 2016) for which the U.S. District Court has declined to issue
judgment, and he won the remaining two on a judgment under Rule 2-519.
National Bloggers Club (I) was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. The Kimberlin v. Hoge peace order petition failed in both
the District and Circuit Courts. Hunton & Williams was dismissed for failure to
state a claim. National Bloggers Club (II) was dismissed with respect to Mr. Hoge
on the ground of res judicata. The false criminal charge resulting from the May,
2015, Application for Statement of Charges fits right into Kimberlins improper and
malicious campaign attempting to use the courts to silence Mr. Hoge and into
May, 2015, against Mr. Hoge and got Tetyana Kimberlin to file it10 for the malicious
purpose of punishing Mr. Hoge for reporting truthfully about Brett Kimberlin and
his past and present activities. Thus, Brett Kimberlin acted with malice.
Mrs. Kimberlin does. As noted supra, the Court has already ruled against the
9 While Mr. Hoge is not a party to these last two lawsuits, many of the defendants
in both have been sued as Mr. Hoges co-defendants by Kimberlin before.
10The Kimberlins simultaneously filed a pair of virtually identical Applications for
Statement of Charges against both Aaron Walker and Mr. Hoge in 2015. Kimberlin
admitted writing the Applications during the Walker trial See Exhibit F.
17
Kimberlins on these matters, and such arguments have no proper place in a Motion
Mr. Hoge showed in his Motion for Summary Judgment that there is no
genuine dispute over any material fact related to Count XI of this lawsuit. On the
other hand, Brett Kimberlin has failed to meet his burden to show a genuine
dispute over just one material fact related to that count. Therefore, Mr. Hoge is
Must Be Considered As One And The Same on page 19, the remainder of
Docket Item 144/0 mostly deals with the Kimberlins legal wrangling with Aaron
Walker and Brett Kimberlins attempts to silence Mr. Walker for truthful reporting
concerning Brett Kimberlins past and present activities. It contains odd page
been recycled via cut-and-paste from a paper filed in another lawsuit. It is it not
To the extent that section makes allegations concerning Mr. Hoge, those
allegations mostly have been debunked elsewhere, and most of what Kimberlin
raises in pages 19-26 is immaterial. The following (which might have been material
18
o.) Walker and Hoge were asked by Brett Kimberlin to leave Kimberlin
p.) Plaintiff was the ringleader and catalyst of the Everybody Blog About
r.) Plaintiff contacted Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin after that hearing and
complaints, motions and talking points falsely alleging that Defendant Brett
s.) Plaintiff was told by Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin, after she renounced
the documents typed by Walker, that the information was not true, to remove it
u.) Walker and Plaintiff tweeted that they wanted to take discovery and
depositions from that daughter and her friends to ask them about sex ; Id. at 22.
v.) Plaintiff wanted and tried repeatedly to have Defendant Brett Kimberlin
w.) Plaintiff repeatedly posted tweets and blog articles falsely portraying
19
x.) Walker and Plaintiff tweeted that Defendants daughter should not have
friends over for sleepovers because Defendant Brett Kimberlin posed a threat to
z.) Plaintiff admitted that one of his associates wrote a blog post about
23.
ab.) Plaintiff offered Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin free legal services, and
he and his friends offered to and did raise money for her, which she refused ; Id.
at 23.
et al. suit. It does not state that the jury in that case found any statement in the
Kimberlins Application for Statement of Charges filed against Mr. Walker was
true. However, it does state that jury found that some of the Kimberlins
20
Walker had earlier committed on Kimberlin. The jury further
found that the Defendants failed to disclose material information in
their Application for Statement of Charges. Specifically, Mr.
Walker represented Tetyana Kimberlin as a lawyer on a pro bono
basis and a legal fund was established with her consent.
R contain writings by Mr. Hoge, and only Exhibits B, N, and U contain writings
addressed to him. All the rest have nothing to do with Mr. Hoge. They are
immaterial on their face, and Kimberlin has failed to show how they bear on any
As noted supra (at 5, 6), the email from Aaron Walker cited in Kimberlin
of the post as it found on the Internet,11 altered to obscure the context within which
Mr. Hoge made his comment correcting another commenters error. This comment
formed the sham basis for the Kimberlin v. Hoge peace order petition and was found
11 http://thinkingmanszombie.com/2015/03/your-moment-of-zombie-zen/.
21
is @wjjhoge). They do not contain any statements by Mr. Hoge. Thus, they are
immaterial.
addressed to Mr. Hoge. Neither is from him. Since neither of the emails shown
Thus, the bulk of the Kimberlin Exhibits are immaterial and the few that are
CONCLUSION
Tetyana Kimberlin and Brett Kimberlin have failed to meet their burdens to
show a genuine dispute over a single material fact or that the facts and the law
Kimberlin has similarly failed with respect to Count VI. On the other hand, Mr.
Hoge has shown that there are genuinely disputed material facts related to Counts
I and IX.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to deny the Kimberlin Defendants
be paid to Mr. Hoge by Tetyana Kimberlin and any other Defendant(s) as to Count
XI,
22
iii.) To enjoin Tetyana Kimberlin from directly filing any Application for
Statement of Charges against Mr. Hoge with a District Court Commission but to
require her to make any further complaints concerning Mr. Hoge through a police
iv.) To grant such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 12th day of May, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing on
the following persons:
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
23
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.
24
Exhibit A
Signature page from Docket Item 144/0 as served on Mr. Hoge.
Exhibit B
Brett Kimberlins Affidavit from Docket Item 144/0 as served on Mr. Hoge.
Exhibit C
Weigel, David, The Weirdest Story About a Conservative Obsession, a
Convicted Bomber, and Taylor Swift You Ever Read, The Daily Beast, http://
www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/30/the-weirdest-story-about-a-
conservative-obsession-a-convicted-bomber-and-taylor-swift-you-have-ever-read.
Exhibit D
Mr. Hoges Second Affidavit Relating to Count XI.
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.
Judgment (Docket Item 144/0), Tetyana Kimberlin states [t]he Commissioner was
told in the statement of charges about the Peace Order hearing and Judge
Application for Statement of Charges. First, the denial of the peace order petition
was not reported to the Commissioner. That denial was significant because is
showed that the Kimberlins could not establish any harassment had occurredeven
to the lower standard required for a peace order. Second, Judge Creightons
remarks were falsely reported as applying to me. See Docket Time 144/0, Kimberlin
Exhibit D4.
(Docket Item 144/0), Brett Kimberlin falsely states Plaintiff admitted that he and
Walker engaged in much of the conduct alleged in the criminal complaint. I deny
every making such an admission, and there is no evidence that I ever did. Further,
I deny that I ever engaged in any of the illegal acts alleged in the 18 May, 2015,
in the bullet points under the paragraph 5 beginning on page 20 of his Motion for
Summary Judgment. Most do not bear on any material fact related to Count XI.
The following statements from paragraph 5 concerning Count XI are false and/or
misleading:
a.) Walker and Hoge were asked by Brett Kimberlin to leave Kimberlin
alone but he [sic] did not. There is no evidence of Brett Kimberlin asking me to
leave him or his family alone dated before 6 March, 2015, the date he filed the
daughter not the Internet. Until the Peace Order petition was filed on 6 March,
2015, I had never published a blog post about Kelsie Kimberlin. She had been
mentioned in passing (but not by name) in posts about other people or events, but
she had never been the subject of a post on Hogewash! before that date. Kimberlin
has not produced any evidence to the contrary because there is none.
c.) Walker and Plaintiff tweeted that they wanted to take discovery and
depositions from that daughter and her friends to ask them about sex. I deny
2
evidence to the contrary. Indeed, Kimberlins Exhibit B in his Motion for Summary
d.) Plaintiff repeatedly posted tweets and blog article falsely portraying
Defendant Brett Kimberlin as a pedophile and used the PedoBear graphic in those
posts, and coined the name, [sic] DreadPedoKimberlin. Brett Kimberlin sued me
for defamation in August, 2013, alleging among other things that I had falsely
called him a pedophile. He lost that lawsuit on a directed verdict on the basis of
truth. Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2014).
Kimberlin is now estopped from bringing this allegation, but he refuses to take No
as an answer from the courts. He keeps bringing this allegation up over and over
again. I deny that I ever defamed Brett Kimberlin,1 and there is no evidence to the
contrary.
e.) Walker and Plaintiff tweeted that Defendants daughters should not
have friends over for sleepovers because Defendant Brett Kimberlin posed a threat
to their safety. I have never made such a statement on Twitter on in any public
f.) Plaintiff admitted that one of his associates wrote a blog post about
3
hungering over Defendants daughter at a middle school basketball game This
appears to relate to the blog post shown in altered form in Kimberlins Exhibit R.
On information and belief, that post was written by the anonymous blogger known
as Paul Krendler. While I once bought a copyright from Krendler in order to keep
a work off the market and the copyright for that work is jointly registered to
Krendler and me, we are not associates in any other way, and there is no evidence
to the contrary.
g.) and Plaintiff posted a comment on that post listing the daughters
birth age and the month she was born. This is not the allegation found in the
Application for Statement of Charges which falsely alleges that I posted her
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,
4
Exhibit E
Mr. Hoges Affidavit Relating to Counts I, VI, and IX.
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.
30July, 2013, against me is riddled with statements that are false and/or
against me for violation of Md. Crim. L. 8-303. Because I have never engaged in
any act or group of acts that would violate that statuteeither on my own or acting
cause to charge me. Kimberlin made the following false and/or misleading
deny that I have every engaged in stalking anyone, and there is no evidence to the
contrary.
b.) [H]e has offered my mentally ill wife things of value to sign false
documents prepared by him and his associate Aaron Walker. I have never
offered anyone anything of value in order to induce him or her to sign a false
document, and there is no evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence that Mrs.
Kimberlin has ever suffered from a mental disorder. On information and belief,
Brett Kimberlin filed a petition for an involuntary evaluation of his wife in July,
Kimberlin was suing the anonymous blogger Kimberlin Unmasked for copyright
infringement1 at time he filed the Application for Statement of Charges against me,
and the Kimberlin Unmasked copyright suit had no connection to me. At the end of
August, 2013, Kimberlin filed the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V
(Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2014), naming Kimberlin Unmasked and me as separate
defendants. He settled both suit with two individuals who he claimed were
Kimberlin Umasked, and I was not a part of either settlement. Clearly, Kimberlin
knew that I was not associated with the Kimberlin Unmasked blog, and there is no
daily false attacks on me. Kimberlin did not provide any specific examples of
any false attack I had made on him via Hogewash! during the 30 days prior to his
2
finding of probable cause for harassment. I deny ever making a false attack on
e.) William Hoge in July 2013, has been stalking and harassing me
Tetyana that are false. First, I am not a lawyer, and I have never prepared a
legal document for any person other than myself, and there is no evidence to the
prepared legal documents under Mr. Walkers supervision. Mr. Walker is licensed
ultimately used by Mrs. Kimberlin, that work would have been under Mr. Walkers
supervision, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Brett Kimberlin has stated
f.) My wife has a long history of mental illness and Mr. Hoge is
taking advantage of and exploiting that mental illness to stalk and harass
activity. As noted supra, there is no evidence that Tetyana Kimberlin has ever
suffered from any mental disorder. Although I am not a qualified mental health
professional, I can state that Tetyana Kimberlin never acted in any way that caused
me to suspect that she might be mentally ill during the time I helped her in the
summer of 2013. As noted in my previous Affidavit (Docket Item 136/0, Ex. B, g.),
3
I provided assistance to Tetyana Kimberlin in finding legal counsel for her custody
fight with husband during July and August of 2013. I deny that I manipulated
Tetyana Kimberlin in any way or tried to use her to stalk or harass Brett
g.) I have repeatedly told Mr. Hoge to leave my family and me alone
h.) He is obsessed with attacking me using the most vile and untrue
some truthful things that I have said about him might be considered vile in that
they accurately describe Kimberlins despicable behavior, e.g., his twice suing
reporter Mandy Nagy after she had been incapacitated by a massive stroke and
could not defend herselfand then keeping her in the case as an appellee after
July, 2013, it would have been in my capacity as a paralegal working under the
4
document contained false information, it would have been provided by Mr. Walkers
pushing her toward actions that could result in death or serious injury to
my wife. Again, there is no evidence that Mrs. Kimberlin has ever suffered from
mental illness. Further, I deny ever doing any thing during the summer of 2013
that would have been detrimental to her interests, health, or safety, and there is no
deny ever doing any thing during the summer of 2013 that would have been
detrimental to the health, the safety, or the interests of Tetyana Kimberlin or her
children, and there is no evidence to the contrary. I deny that I have ever suggested
that she do any thing to harm Brett Kimberlin, and there is no evidence to the
contrary.
m.) Mr. Hoge has been using the Internet, blogs, Twitter, and other
electronic means to stalk and harass me. Brett Kimberlin claims that
speaking or writing negative but truthful things about him is harassment. I deny
that I have every stalked or harassed anyone using the Internet, blogs, Twitter , or
other electronic means, and there is no evidence to the contrary. I deny that I have
every engaged in any act or group or acts, alone or in concert with another, that
5
would violate either Md. Crim. L. 3-802 or 3-803, and there is no evidence to the
contrary.
business and ability to earn a living. I deny that it is possible to harm Brett
Kimberlins reputation.2. I deny that I have ever done any act for the purpose of
3. I allege that Bretts Kimberlins email to counsel for the U.S. Chamber
manner with which it represented the temporary peace order as served on me.
Exhibit 3.
proffered the communication between Brett Kimberlin and Twitter concerning the
between Brett Kimberlin and Twitter. Kimberlin has failed to produce the
document in discovery.
6
5. Brett Kimberlin states in paragraph 19 of his Motion for Summary
Judgment (Docket Item 144/0) that because he filed his complaints against me via
Twitters automated system that no defamation occurred because only a robot saw
the communication. I received multiple emails from Twitter concerning the account
suspensions, including at least one that was obviously written by a human being
are true.
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,
7
Exhibit 1
Application for Statement of Charges filed by Brett Kimberlin on 30 July, 2013.
Exhibit 2
Email sent by Brett Kimberlin to the counsel for the U. S. Chamber of
Commerce on 9 March, 2015. Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams LLP, et al., Case No.
15-CV-723, Reply Memorandum, ECF No. 71-1 (D.Md. Sep. 25, 2015), Ex. 1.
Case 8:15-cv-00723-GJH Document 71-1 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 3
Temporary Peace Order as served on Mr. Hoge.
Exhibit 4
Extracts of emails from Twitter received by Mr. Hoge.
From: Twitter Support support@twitter.com
Subject: Case# 18572582: Follow-up to suspension appeal: @wjjhoge
Date: 6 July, 2015 at 18:13
To: himself@wjjhoge.com
Hello,
Thanks,
Reference #ref:00DA0000000K0A8.500G000000kU5D7:ref
Help
Twitter, Inc. 1355 Market Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94103
From: Twitter Support support@twitter.com
Subject: Case# 18572582: Follow-up to suspension appeal: @wjjhoge
Date: 8 July, 2015 at 20:55
To: himself@wjjhoge.com
Hello,
@DisgruntledDM
You may select one account for restoration; the rest will remain
suspended. The account you choose will need to comply fully
with our rules, as additional violations may result in permanent
suspension.
------------------------------X
:
AARON WALKER, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil No. 398855
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL., :
:
Defendants. :
:
------------------------------X
JURY TRIAL
------------------------------X
:
AARON WALKER, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil No. 398855
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL., :
:
Defendants. :
:
------------------------------X
Rockville, Maryland
matter commenced
APPEARANCES:
Exhibit No. 7 65 66
Exhibit No. 8 72 74
Exhibit No. 9 87 --
Exhibit No. 10 107 --
Exhibit No. 12 121 122
Exhibit No. 13 123 131
Exhibit No. 14 132 --
Exhibit No. 15 139 140
Exhibit No. 16 141 --
Exhibit No. 17 144 --
Exhibit No. 18 155 --
Exhibit No. 19 158 --
Exhibit No. 20 166 169
Exhibit No. 21 175 175
Exhibit No. 6 -- 38
Exhibit No. 29 -- 39
Exhibit No. 43 18 42
Exhibit No. 44 18 42
Exhibit No. 45 21 --
Exhibit No. 46 21 --
Exhibit No. 47 21 --
Exhibit No. 48 21 --
Exhibit No. 49 21 --
Exhibit No. 50 21 --
Exhibit No. 51 32 --
Exhibit No. 52 32 --
Exhibit No. 53 32 --
Exhibit No. 54 32 --
Exhibit No. 55 59 --
Exhibit No. 56 188 --
75
3 at it.
5 even --
7 THE COURT: Okay. Well then, why don't you ask him
8 the questions from the last three pages that aren't objected
9 to.
11 BY MR. WALKER:
15 BY MR. WALKER:
17 daughter, yourself?
18 A Yeah, uh-huh.
19 Q Okay.
21 into it. I mean, she was definitely upset about what was
22 happening to Kelsie.
8 BY MR. WALKER:
10 A Which ones?
13 A Right.
1 page -- "I'm going to cross your name out, and, and she should
3 do it jointly, and --
4 Q Okay.
9 BY MR. WALKER:
10 Q Isn't the real reason why you didn't file under your
11 own name, because you had filed so many charges against so many
17 because --
23 BY MR. WALKER:
AARON WALKER
v.
By:
_________________________
KIMBERLY L. CHWIRUT
Transcriber