William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,
v.
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
Case No. 06-C-16-070789

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS BRETT AND TETYANA KIMBERLINS

MOTION TO FIND WILLIAM HOGE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
Comes now William John Joseph Hoge and opposes Defendants Brett and
Tetyana Kimberlins Motion to Find William Hoge a Vexatious Litigant (Docket
Item 47). In opposition Mr. Hoge states as follows:
THE DEFENDANTS MOTION MISREPRESENTS MR. HOGES HISTORY OF
LITIGATION
The Kimberlins allege with no supporting evidence offered that
[o]ver the past three years, he [Mr. Hoge] has filed close to 400 legal
actions against Defendants and those associated with them in three
different counties in Maryland, including Carroll, Howard and
Montgomery.
Docket Item 47, 1. They offer no evidence because none exists. The allegation is
false as is shown by an examination of the Maryland Judiciary Case Search online
database.
Exhibit A is a screen capture of the report generated by civil case search for
the name William Hoge over the range from 17 May, 2013, (three years and a day
before the date of Defendants motion) to 26 May, 2016. Mr. Hoge shows up as a
defendant in five cases (four filed by Brett Kimberlin, one filed by Defendant

William Schmalfeldt) and as the plaintiff in the instant lawsuit. Mr. Hoge also filed
two peace order petitions against Schmalfeldt. One was granted in 2014. One was
denied in 2015. Of the cases shown in Exhibit A filed by Kimberlin:
380966V resulted in a directed verdict in Mr. Hoges favor.
403868V was dismissed with prejudice for res judicata.
0601SP012712015 was a peace order petition which was denied.
9148D was the appeal of that peace order petition and was denied.
Schmalfeldts lawsuit did not survive a motion to dismiss.
Exhibit B is a screen capture of the report generated by a civil case search on
PACER for the name William Hoge in the Fourth Circuit. Mr. Hoge shows up as a
defendant in four cases (two filed by Brett Kimberlin, two filed by Schmalfeldt) and
as plaintiff/counterclaim defendant in one filed against Schmalfeldt for copyright
infringement. Schmalfeldt withdrew his first suit against Mr. Hoge two days after
filing it. None of the rest of Kimberlins or Schmalfeldts federal lawsuits survived a
motion to dismiss. The copyright lawsuit filed by Mr. Hoge was settled via
alternate dispute resolution, and Schmalfeldts breach of that settlement is the
basis for Count XII of the instant lawsuit.
Exhibit C is a screen capture of the report generated by criminal case search
for the name William Hoge over the range from 17 May, 2013, to 26 May, 2016. It
shows six cases where Mr. Hoge sought to have a peace order enforced against
Defendant Schmalfeldt. Those six cases included over 350 counts for failure to obey
a peace order as well as several other counts for harassment or misuse of electronic
2

communication. The unwanted contacts by Schmalfeldt that were the basis of those
charges were also one of bases for this Courts extension of the underlying peace
order. Hoge v. Schmalfeldt, Case No. 06-C-13-063359 (Md. Cir.Ct. Carroll Co.
2013). An additional charge from 2015 against Schmalfeldt for failure to obey a
second peace order appears to have been expunged. Of course, those seven criminal
cases were State v. Schmalfeldt. While Mr. Hoge was the victim, he was not a party
and did not file any actions.
Mr. Hoge also appears as a criminal defendant in one case. That is the case
underlying Count XI in the Complaint. The false charge underlying Count I does
not appear in the online record.
Clearly, Mr. Hoge did not file close to 400 legal actions during the past
three years. In fact, the total number, including the instant lawsuit, is four and not
four hundred. The first three were filed against Defendant Schmalfeldt, two peace
order petitions and one copyright infringement lawsuit. On the other hand, Mr.
Hoge has been on the receiving end of four lawsuits and a peace order petition from
Brett Kimberlin and three lawsuits from Schmalfeldt. Mr. Hoge won all of those
lawsuits, and the peace order sought against him was denied. Moreover, Mr. Hoge
has been falsely charged with crimes twice because of perjured statements made by
Defendants Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin.
Apparently, Mr. Hoge has vexed Brett Kimberlin and William Schmalfeldt by
successfully defending himself from frivolous and malicious lawsuits and from false
criminal charges. In particular, Defendant Schmalfeldt appears to have been sorely
3

vexed by Mr. Hoges seeking to have peace orders enforced. However, the
disappointment of the Kimberlins and Schmalfeldt at the failure of their multi-year
campaign of lawfare waged against Mr. Hoge does not make Mr. Hoge a vexatious
litigant.
The Defendants also make unsubstantiated, evidence-free allegations
concerning fraud and forum shopping. Motion, 2. Such conclusory allegations
should be ignored.
Again in paragraph 3, the Defendants offer no evidence in support of their
allegation that Mr. Hoge is a sexual predator. Furthermore, Brett Kimberlin is
estopped by the denial of the peace order sought in 2015, Kimberlin v. Hoge, Case
No. 9148D (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2015), and the dismissal with prejudice of
Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (II), Case No. 403868V (Md. Cir.Ct.
Mont. Co. 2016) from alleging that Mr. Hoge has engaged in stalking or harassment
of him or his family or that he has posted any sick or twisted blog articles about
them on the Internet. The allegation in paragraph 4 that Mr. Hoge is an obsessed
stalker is similarly barred. In any event, those allegations are also purely
conclusory and should not be considered. Furthermore, even if the Defendants ad
hominem attacks on Mr. Hoge were true, they would neither prove nor disprove
whether he has engaged in vexatious litigation.
The Defendants have misrepresented the record of cases involving Mr. Hoge.
Given that they have no facts to support their motion to find Mr. Hoge vexatious,
the Court should deny the motion.
4

THE MOTION HAS NEVER BEEN SERVED ON MR. HOGE

Mr. Hoge has never been served with a copy of Docket Item 47. He is aware
of its contents only because he bought a copy from the Clerk of the Court.
The Certificate of Service accompanying the Motion states I certify that I
mailed a copy of this motion on [sic] Plaintiff this 9th day of May, 2016, and it is
signed by Brett Kimberlin. The Courts docket shows that the motion was both
filed and entered on 05/18/2016. Mail rarely takes more than two or three days to
move from Bethesda to Westminster, so if it were true that Kimberlin mailed a copy
of the Motion to Mr. Hoge on the 9th, he should have received it before the Court
received its copy. Yet, Mr. Hoge had not received a copy as of 2 June, 2016.
Given that both the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland1 and the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County2 have had to admonish Kimberlin for failure
to serve court papers on adverse parties, it is unlikely that this failure to serve Mr.
Hoge is a mistake made by a pro se litigant. It is most certainly a knowing violation
1

For example:
All subsequent motions that fail to properly serve all parties in this
matter or are improperly signed, will be struck from the Courts
docket. See ECF No. 133 at 2 (This Court intends to follow Judge
Grimms CMO as written. To the extent a party files a motion (or
other document) that is noncompliant with the CMO, it will be
struck from the Courts docket.).

Kimberlin v. Frey, Letter Order, ECF No. 313 (D.Md. Oct. 15, 2015) at 4, 5.
2

Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V, Order, Docket Item 117 (Md.
Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Mar. 21, 2016). This order requires that parties in the matter
serve one another by Certified Mail, that the Return Receipt be file with the court,
and that all future filing not comply with the order be stricken.
5

of the requirement to serve court papers on all parties who have appeared in a
lawsuit. As such, this failure is itself a sufficient reason to deny the Motion.
THE MOTION IS NOT PROPERLY SIGNED
Rule 1-311 requires that every pleading or paper filed contain the signers
address, telephone number, and email address. Neither Brett nor Tetyana
Kimberlin have provided that information with their signature blocks on the
Motion. Indeed, they have not provided that information on any paper they have
filed with this Court in the instant lawsuit.
Given that this error has been pointed out several times and that the
Kimberlins have taken not steps to correct the error but have continued to submit
filings without the information required by Rule 1-311, the Court should consider
the violation willful and as sufficient reason to deny the Motion.
THE MOTION CONTAINS IMPROPER, IMMATERIAL, IMPERTINENT, AND
SCANDALOUS MATERIAL
The ad hominem attacks on Mr. Hoge referring to him as a serial
harasser (Motion, title), as a sexual predator (id., title, 3 ), as obsessed (id.,
1, 4), as a stalker (id., 4), and as a twisted and depraved sadist (id., 4) are
made with no evidentiary support. As such, these epithets are clearly improper.
Moreover, they are immaterial. Mr. Hoge might be all those things and still not be
vexatious. Thus, there is no reason for Defendants to bring such impertinent and
scandalous allegations in the instant motion. Rule 2-322(e) allows for a motion
containing such material to be stricken. This Courts inherent power to maintain

control of its docket and the dignity of its proceedings allow it to deny such a
motion. It should exercise its authority and deny the instant Motion.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to DENY Defendants Brett and Tetyana
Kimberlins Motion to Find William Hoge a Vexatious Litigant (Docket Item 47) and
for such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.
Date: 3 June, 2016

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 3rd day of June, 2016, I served copies of the foregoing on
the following persons:
William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 3209 S. Lake Drive, Apt. 108,
St. Francis, Wisconsin 53235
William Ferguson by First Class U. S. Mail to 10808 Schroeder Road, Live Oak,
California 95953
Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817 (last known address)
Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817 (last know address)

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: 3 June, 2016
William John Joseph Hoge

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,
v.
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
Case No. 06-C-16-070789

PROPOSED ORDER

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Brett and Tetyana

Kimberlins Motion to Find William Hoge a Vexatious Litigant and any reply
thereto, this ________ day of _______________, 2016, said motion (Docket Item 47) is
hereby DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.

_______________________________________
Circuit Court Judge