Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and opposes the Kimberlin
Defendants Motion for Sanctions (Docket Item. 137/0). In opposition to the motion
I. INTRODUCTION
attempt to silence him while Mr. Hoge is suing them for falsely accusing him of
crimes in their previous attempts to silence him. The Court should disregard the
Kimberlins Motion for Sanctions (Docket Item 137/0) because it contains nothing
but unsworn conclusory allegations which are not backed up by admissible evidence
and because it has no basis in law The one exhibit they provide in support of their
acts alleged in the motion, and there is no evidence to the contrary. He denies that
he has ever asked or encouraged or incited any third party to engage in harassment,
intimidation, or any of the illegal acts alleged in the motion, and there is no
evidence to the contrary.
witnesses and parties, the Kimberlins fail to provide anything other than their
unsworn words to show that Mr. Hogeor anyone acting at his direction or
lawsuits since the beginning of 2014, alleging that they had defamed, stalked, and
harassed him. None of his lawsuits have survived beyond a motion to dismiss. On
the other hand, Schmalfeldts behavior online has resulted in multiple restraining
orders being issued against him.2 Thus, Schmalfeldt has given many people on the
2
Internet reasons to keep track of him and his online writings. In spite of all his
online drama, Schmalfeldt has not, as of this writing, produced any evidence that he
filed with the Court detailing harassment he claims to have suffered, including the
slashing of tires on his car. As of close of business on 21 April, 2017, no such motion
was on the online case docket. However, Mr. Hoge believes the Kimberlins may be
that paper shows clear photographic evidence that the tires on the passenger side of
Schmalfeldts car were not slashed, but suffered sidewall damage, mostly likely
from striking a curb.3 Exhibit A. Thus, the photograph that the Kimberlins wish to
rely on as evidence of alleged vandalism does not support their claim. Not only
have the Kimberlins failed to offer evidence that Schmalfeldt has been harassed,
what they wish to offer tends to disprove that any harassment occurred. 4
3The wheel rims in the picture show damage consistent with rubbing against an
object such as a curb.
4The Court should note that Schmalfeldt claimed that he his unable to drive
because of his advanced Parkinsons disease in his Request to Appear by Telephone.
(Docket Item 70/0). The Court allowed him to appear via Skype. On information
and belief, shortly after the 27 September, 2016, motions hearing, Schmalfeldt
acquired a Wisconsin drivers license and bought a car. Exhibit A also contains an
extract from the paper served on Mr. Hoge by Schmalfeldt on 9 April, 2017, in
which Schmalfeldt states that he has a driver license and owns a car. Ex. A at 2. If
Schmalfeldt is driving while suffering from advanced Parkinsons disease, it would
not be unreasonable to suspect that he had struck a curb hard enough to damage
his vehicles passenger-side tires.
3
They have certainly failed to produce any evidence of a connection between
Mr. Hoge or anyone acting on his behalf and any alleged stalking, harassment, or
The Kimberlins claim that Mr. Hoge has harassed or intimidated their
potential witness Judge Michael Mason by sending him a letter is frivolous. The
Kimberlins have a copy of Mr. Hoges letter to Judge Mason. In fact, they have
included a copy of the letter as an exhibit in one of their previous sanctions motions
claiming that Mr. Hoge had harassed Judge Masonand which this Court properly
denied. Docket Items 109/0 and 110/0. Yet, they continue to misrepresent the
the time in order, for example, to determine the nature of the witnesses potential
testimony. Moverover, there was nothing improper in Mr. Hoges letter to Judge
Mason, and Mr,. Hoge never advised Judge Mason to retain legal counsel.
with no bearing on this state lawsuit. This not the first time Brett Kimberlin has
tried to use that statute as the basis for an allegation against Mr. Hoge. In the first
RICO lawsuit he filed against Mr. Hoge, Kimberlin tried to use 18U.S.C.1512 to
criminalize both reporting on his legal affairs and engaging in normal litigation
practices as witness tampering. That claim did not survive a motion to dismiss.
4
Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al., Case No. 13-CV-3059-GJH,
Memorandum Opinion. ECF No. 263 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2015) at 9 - 11. If this were a
federal case, Brett Kimberlins attempt to use the statute to criminalize protected
speech and normal litigation practice would once again be wrong, and he should
know that after being told so by a U.S. District Court. But this is not a federal
bystanders and reporters is also a matter for concern. But the Kimberlins have not
Their real problem with intimidation is that they have been generally unsuccessful
at it.5 All of Brett Kimberlins lawsuits against Mr. Hoge have failed, and Mr. Hoge
5 Mr. Hoge has not been a defendant in all of Brett Kimberlins lawsuits aimed at
shutting down his critics. Kimberlin has only sued Mr. Hoge four times. Mr. Hoge
had over forty codefendants those cases: Aaron Walker (three times), Robert Stacy
McCain (twice), Ali Akbar (three times), Lynn Thomas, Peter Malone, National
Bloggers Club (twice), Patrick Frey (twice), Erick Erickson (twice), Michelle Malkin
(twice), Twitchy (twice), Glenn Beck (twice), Lee Stranahan (twice), James OKeefe
III, Mandy Nagy (twice), Breitbart Holdings (twice), DB Capitol Strategies (twice),
Dan Backer (twice), The Franklin Center, Simon & Schuster Inc., Mercury Radio
Arts (twice), The Blaze (twice), RedState (twice), The American Spectator, Hunton
& Williams LLP, United States Chamber of Commerce, Palantir Technologies,
Berico Technolgies, Mantech International, HB Gary/Federal, John Woods, Richard
Wyatt, Robert Quackenbush, Aaron Barr, Alex Long, Nicholas Hallam, Matthew
Steckman, Pat Ryan, Sam Kremin, Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, Bill
Nickless, the anonymous blogger Ace of Spades, and the anonymous blogger
Kimberlin Unmasked. Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V (Md. Cir.Ct.
Mont. Co. 2014), Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (I), Case No. 13-
CV-3059-GJH (D.Md. 2015), Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams LLP, et al., Case No.
15-CV-723-GJH (D.Md. 2016), and Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club (II), Case
No. 403868V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2016). Kimberlin has not yet exhausted all of
his appeals, so there are a great many people quite interested in his activities in
support of his lawfare against them.
5
is still writing about Kimberlins attempts to use the courts to intimidate and
silence his enemies. While Kimberlin has recently filed yet another federal lawsuit
against multiple defendants,6 his civil litigation is, for the most part, no longer
viewed as a real threat but is seen as a vexatious nuisance. When Brett Kimberlin
engages so ineptly in his lawfare, Mr. Hoge does not have to blow some Internet dog
whistle in order for people to point and laugh and shake their heads. All he has to
do is report the facts. That factual reporting and the resulting mockery in the
comment section of Mr. Hoges website are protected speech. Nothing Mr. Hoge has
ever written about the Kimberlins comes close to being incitement under
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) or a threat under Virginia v. Black, 538
The protection of that speech is expressly secured by the Free Press Clause of
the First Amendment and also by Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
Brett Kimberlins original allegations that truthful reporting about him constitutes
harassment and defamation failed years ago. 7 Yet, he keeps making essentially the
same frivolous claim. Its time for the Court to put a stop to his doing the same
thing over and over again expecting a different result. Brett Kimberlins failed
attempts to use civil actions in the courts for brass knuckles reputation
management have not silenced all his critics. His tactics have wound up making
6
himself all-the-more infamous.8
Mr. Hoge and others have also failed, and it is now time for them to be held
accountable for their malicious prosecution of Mr. Hoge. It is time for the
statements concerning Mr. Hoge. It is time for the courts to put an end to Team
Its somewhat surprising that the Kimberlins should bring up State v. Milton,
Case No. 01K16017864. That case involves an attempt to harass and intimidate
witnesses by posting courtroom audio on the Internet. Note the actual charge in
Milton is contempt of court for violating the standing order against publication of
courtroom audio.
In fact, Mr. Hoge has never posted hearing or trial audio from a Maryland
Courtroom on his website or anyplace else online. But Breitbart Unmasked has and
did so for the Kimberlins benefit in an online article related to this case. Exhibit B.
8Kimberlins efforts have backfired in much the same way that Jerry Falwells did
when he appealed Falwell v. Flynt and wound up with Hustler v. Falwell, 485 U. S.
46 (1988).
7
d. An Ex Parte Hearing Would Be Improper
The Kimberlins say that they have evidence that they could have presented
in support of their motion, but they are only willing to do so in an ex parte hearing.
In other words, they are unwilling to present their evidence if it could be subject to
parte hearing should be taken as a red flag confirming that they know what they
admissible evidence. All they have is unsworn conclusory allegations which the
The Kimberlins have attached what they purport to be a copy of Mr. Hoges
Team Kimberlin Post of the Day from 17 April, 2017. It is not a true and correct
First, the blog posts embedded copy of Defendants Brett and Tetyana
obscured so that it cannot be seen to be accurate copy of that Motion as they served
it on Mr. Hoge.
Second, some of the blog posts comments have been deleted from the
8
Kimberlins version.9 It is obvious from a side-by-side comparison of the actual blog
post vis vis the Kimberlins exhibit that their exhibit was assembled using cut-
and-paste but that proper care was not taken with image sizing. For example, text
blocks that should have exactly the same size fonts have slightly different size fonts.
One place that error can be seen in the difference in the type sizes for the comments
in the top and bottom halves of Page 6 of 10. Another error in image sizing caused
the commenters avatar that should be to the left of the cartoon shown on Page 7 of
The comment section at Mr. Hoges blog Hogewash! is generally open, and it
is his general practice to allow any comments so long as they met Mr. Hoges
minimum standard for decorum and avoid defamation or threats.10 Mr. Hoge also
prohibits comments about family members of controversial person who are not
must provide a email address, and the commenting system harvests the
commenters IP address. If those email and IP address are both associated with a
previously approved comment, the incoming comment is posted without review (but
9 The comments deleted mostly relate to William Schmalfeldt. At least one appears
to relate to a 2,000 mile driving trip Schmalfeldt claims to have taken over the
recent Easter weekend.
10Each commenter is responsible for his own comments. Mr. Hoge and Hogewash!
are not responsible per 47 U.S.C. 230.
9
the IP address, or the combination of the two is new, then the comment is held in
The Kimberlins assertion that Mr. Hoge does not moderate comments on his
blog is not only false in general, it is specifically false with respect to the 17 April
Team Kimberlin Post of the Day. According the Mr. Hoges records, he deleted three
comments from normally approved commenters. Two were deleted for off-color
jokes that failed to meet Mr. Hoges standards for decorum. One was deleted for
mentioning someones family member who Mr. Hoge considers off-limits. Two other
the email and IP addresses showed those comments were probably from an
either Brett Kimberlin or William Schmalfeldt to attempt to make such false flag
altered state of the Kimberlins exhibit, the Court should consider the Kimberlins
exhibit an effort by them to deceive the Court. The Court has no reason to trust the
Kimberlins, and it should not. The altered exhibit should be considered as yet
10
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to deny the Kimberlins Motion for
Sanctions (Docket Item 137/0) and to grant such other relief as it may find just and
proper.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 24th 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
11
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.
12
Exhibit A
Extracts from a paper served on Mr. Hoge via email by William Schmalfeldt
on 9 April, 2017.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY MARYLAND
INTRODUCTION
respectfully requests this honorable Court to issue an Order to Show Cause as to why Plaintiff
William John Joseph Hoge III (PLAINTIFF) should not be held in civil and possible criminal
FACTS
2. Defendant had been reluctant to give his new home address and phone number to
Plaintiff because of incidents that have occurred in the past when Plaintiff had access to
Defendants addresses in Maryland and Wisconsin. For example, in January 2015, Plaintiff
enlisted his friend, Patrick G. Grady, 414 Gregory Ave, #1C, Glendale Heights, IL 60139
(GRADY), to fabricate a letter and forge Defendants signature in a failed attempt to give
Plaintiff a reason to have Defendant found in Contempt of Court for violating a peace order
pending before Judge Stansfield. (EXHIBIT 1) When Defendant moved to Wisconsin in August
2015 following the death of his wife, Plaintiff learned of Defendants new address and either
paid or otherwise encouraged Grady to stalk Defendant, including the theft of his identity (social
security number) which Grady used to ascertain Defendants drivers license number and thus
learn that Defendant had purchased a vehicle. Plaintiff either paid Grady or otherwise
encouraged him to travel from his residence to Defendants residence in Saint Francis,
Wisconsin to take a photograph of Defendants vehicle, which Grady published on his blog,
http://thinkingmanszombie.com. (EXHIBIT 2)
3. Even though Defendant was wary of Plaintiff having his latest home address and phone
number following Defendants move to Iowa, Defendant complied and sent his information to
Plaintiff via e-mail at 1:58 pm CDT on March 31, 2017. (EXHIBIT 3) But Plaintiff had already
been at work stalking out Defendants address. He posted a picture along with one he found on
Google Maps, which would have shown the address on March 28, 2017. (EXHIBIT 4) When
4. The next morning, April 1, 2017, Defendant discovered that the two passenger side tires
on his 1999 Ford Explorer the same vehicle photographed and posted by Grady on his blog
had been slashed. (EXHIBIT 6) Defendant replaced the tires at a cost of $436.02 (EXHIBIT 7)
and filed a report with the Clinton, Iowa, Police Department. (EXHIBIT 8) On the night of
March 31-April 1, 2017 there were approximately a dozen vehicles parked on Defendants home
block of 3rd Ave. North in Clinton, Iowa. Defendants vehicle was the only one to suffer damage
of any kind, and there were no other reports of any vandalism in the area. Defendant has no one
else on earth who wishes him harm other than Plaintiff and his readers.
5. On the evening of April 1, 2017, Defendant began receiving harassing text messages on
his cell phone, the number for which had been provided to Plaintiff the day earlier. These
harassing text messages continued until April 6, when Defendant made it known he had become
2
27
Exhibit B
Extract from Why Should A Judge Believe Anything William Hoge Says?
downloaded from http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/2016/05/16/why-should-a-
judge-believe-anything-william-hoge-says/ on 21 April, 2017.
Note that the first sentence of the second paragraph states that the article
contains embedded courtroom audio.
Exhibit C
The Kimberlins Exhibit A as served on Mr. Hoge.
Exhibit D
Extract of the Team Kimberlin Post of the Day for 17 April, 2017. The last
comment shown in the Kimberlins Exhibit A was timestamped at 15:26, so only
comments through that time have been provided for comparison.