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 THE KIMBERLIN DEFENDANTS MOTION TO

SANCTION
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and opposes the Kimberlin
Defendants Motion to Sanction (Docket Item 109/0). In opposition Mr. Hoge states
as follows:
The Kimberlins assert in their Motion to Sanction that Mr. Hoge told Judge
Mason to take judicial action against the Defendants for listing him as a witness.
Motion to Sanction at 1. As the Court can see from the copy of Mr. Hoges letter
which the Kimberlins attached to their Motion to Sanction, Mr. Hoge wrote no such
thing. Because Mr. Hoge suspected that the Kimberlins had not contacted Judge
Mason concerning the possibility of his testifying in the instant lawsuit, and Mr.
Hoge wrote to Judge Mason to inform him of the Kimberlins possible intent so that
he could take whatever steps, if any, he deemed necessary, such as retaining
counsel for the matter. While Mr. Hoge is proceeding pro se and is not as well
versed in formal procedures as a member of the bar, he has enough common sense
to know that he cant tell a Circuit Court judge to take judicial action.
Moreover, it simply isnt harassment to notify a potential witness that he

might be called to testify.1 The Kimberlins allegation is patently frivolous.

The Kimberlins are not just shading the truth a bit. They are flatly
misrepresenting the contents of Mr. Hoges letter to Judge Mason. This is not the
first time they have told this Court something when the documented recordoften
their own exhibitssays something very different.2 Given the Kimberlins repeated
falsehoods in multiple court papers, it would not be unreasonable for the Court to
assume that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, applies to any paper they file. The
Court should disregard the Kimberlins facially false allegations and deny their
Motion to Sanction
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to deny the Kimberlins Motion to
Sanction (Docket Item 109/0) and to grant such other relief as the Court may find
just and proper.

So in a lawsuit in which the Kimberlins are being sued for malicious prosecution
for falsely alleging in Applications for Statement of Charges that Mr. Hoge engaged
in harassment, the Kimberlins have again falsely accused Mr. Hoge of engaging in
harassment.
2

Here are a couple of examples:

In the Kimberlins Motion to Find William Hoge a Vexatious Litigant (Docket Item
47/0) they misrepresented the number and kinds of legal actions filed by Mr. Hoge
against both Brett Kimberlin and William Schmalfeldt.
The partial transcript of the 14 May, 2015, peace order hearing which the
Kimberlins attached as an exhibit to the Kimberlins Corrected Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Item 105/0) does not support their characterization of
Judge Creightons findings.
2

Date: 11 January, 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 11th day of January, 2017, 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.
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.

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: 11 January, 2017
William John Joseph Hoge