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.

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BRETT KIMBERLINS MOTION TO

CANCEL SHOW CAUSE HEARING

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and opposes Defendant Brett

Kimberlins Motion to Cancel Show Cause Hearing (Docket Item 112/2). In

opposition Mr. Hoge states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

As is shown below, Defendant Brett Kimberlin has failed to obey the Courts

Order to provide complete answers to Mr. Hoges Interrogatories.

On 4 January, 2017, the Court ordered Kimberlin to provide complete

answers to Interrogatories No. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 within fifteen (15) days. (Order,

Docket Item 108/0 at 1) Plaintiff responded by sending a second copy of his original

insufficient answers to Mr. Hoge, so on 23 January, 2017, Mr. Hoge asked the Court

to order Kimberlin to show cause why he should not be found in contempt. (Docket

Item 111/0) The Court issued a Show Cause Order on 26 January (Docket Item

112/0), and Mr. Hoge forwarded the Order to the Montgomery County Sheriffs

Office for service.

 On 26 January, 2017, Mr. Hoge received via U. S. Mail a copy of Kimberlins

Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Show Cause and Copy of Defendants Revised

Interrogatories (Docket Item 111/1). A document styled Defendant Brett

Kimberlins Final Answers to Interrogatories was attached. The answers to

Interrogatories 5 and 6 were still obviously incomplete and non-responsive to the

questions asked. On 10 February, 2017, Mr. Hoge received a copy of Defendant

Brett Kimberlins Response to Order to Show Cause and Motion to Cancel Show

Cause Hearing (Motion to Cancel) via U. S. Mail. A second copy of the new

answers provided on 26 January was attached.

Defendant Brett Kimberlin has not given the Court any reason to cancel the

pending hearing scheduled for 17 March, 2017. Indeed, by attaching his incomplete

and non-responsive answers to his Motion to Cancel, he has provided the Court with

evidence that he has not yet obeyed its Order to provide complete answers and has

not purged his contempt.

I. KIMBERLINS ANSWERS ARE STILL INCOMPLETE AND NON-RESPONSIVE

a. Kimberlins Answer to Interrogatory 5 is Incomplete

Interrogatory 5 is straightforward, yet Kimberlins answer does not fully

address it.

5. In your Complaint filed in Kimberlin v. McConnell, et al., Case

No. 16- CV-1211-GJH (D.Md. 2016) you stated that in conjunction
with your employment by Justice Through Music Project,
Plaintiffs work includes seeking redress in federal court for
violations of his civil and statutory rights. Id., 1. Identify any
instructions, directives, corporate minutes, or job descriptions from
your employer ordering or authorizing you to engage in such

2
 activity as corporate business and the who, if anyone, provides
supervision of those activities.

Answer: There are no written documents related to this

Interrogatory, and I am the Director of Justice Through Music.

First, the Interrogatory is not limited to written documents. It includes any

instructions [or] directive, and an instruction or directive may be verbal. Second,

while Kimberlin may be the Director of Justice Through Music Project, he may be

subject to supervision of some or all of his activities. He is not the principal officer

listed on the corporations IRS Form 990. Exhibit A. That is Jeffery R. Cohen, Esq.

Has Kimberlin received any instructions or directives (verbal or written)

relating to his statement to the U. S. District Court concerning the scope of his

employment?1 If so and he is acting within the scope of that employment, does

anyone supervise that work? Kimberlin has not answered these parts of the

Interrogatory.

b. Kimberlins Answer to Interrogatory 6 is Non-Responsive

Interrogatory 6 seeks information concerning what corporate assets of Justice

Through Music Project or Velvet Revolution.US have been used in support of

Kimberlins campaign of lawfare against Mr. Hoge. Kimberlins answer bears little

relationship to the question asked.

1 Its clear why Kimberlin is dodging this question. If what he told the federal court
is true, then Justice Through Music Project would meet the definition of a law firm
under Md. Rule 16-812, MRPC 1.0(d)(2). In that case, he may be engaged in the
unlicensed practice of law. If it isnt true, then he misled the federal court. Also,
any lawyers associated with JTMP should responsible for supervising Kimberlins
legal endeavors.

3
 6. Identify any instances in which corporate funds or other
resources belonging to Justice Through Music or Velvet
Revolution.US have been used to pay for expenses or to provide
other support related to any civil action (state or federal) or
criminal complaint (including, but not limited to, the Applications
for Statement of Charges at issue in this matter) filed by you
against Mr. Hoge, describing the amount paid or support provided
and which entity paid or provided it.

Answer: There is no fee for filing the Citizen Complaints at issue in

this case of [sic] the supplement requested by Kathy Knight.

The Interrogatory is not limited to filing fees,2 nor is it limited to criminal

matters. It seeks information on any corporate resources used to support

Kimberlins multi-year campaign of lawfare against Mr. Hoge. For example, has

Kimberlin used corporate IT assets to prepare documents for any of the cases he has

brought against Mr. Hoge?3 Kimberlins contact information that he has provided

in his signature block used on filing in this case gives his email address as

justicejtmp@comcast.netwhich appears to be a corporate account. To what extent

have the resources of Justice Through Music Project or Velvet Revolution.US been

used to further Kimberlins multiple lawsuits and false criminal charges against

2 Kimberlin has paid filing fees due in federal cases using Justice Through Music
Project checks on at least two occasions. See Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club,
et al. (I), Case No. 14-MC-01-JCC, Receipt, ECF No. 1-2 (E.D.Va. Jan 9, 2014) and
In Re Brett Kimberlin, Case No. 16-1670, Receipt, Doc. No. 3-2 (4th Cir. June 14,
2016). Mr. Hoge was a party in National Bloggers Club, et al (I). Have there been
other instances of Kimberlins use of corporate funds to pay for his lawfare?
3 Mr. Hoge or his counsel in other matters occasionally have been served
electronically by Kimberlin with Microsoft Word documents by. The Summary tab
in the Properties windows of those documents often shows the Author and Company
as Justice Through Music. Exhibit B is an extract of such a document forwarded to
Mr. Hoge on 8 February, 2017, by his counsel in Kimberlins appeal of Kimberlin v.
National Bloggers Club, et al. (II), No. 16-825, (Md.App. 2017).

4
Mr. Hoge? Indeed, have those corporations been shadow plaintiffs in Kimberlins

lawsuits? Kimberlin has not denied that corporate assets have been used, but one

cannot tell to what extent from his incomplete answer.4

Kimberlin has not obeyed the Courts Order to provide complete answers.

Thus, he has failed to purge his contempt, and the Court should deny his Motion to

Cancel.

II. KIMBERLIN HAS MISREPRESENTED WHEN HE SENT HIS TWO VERSIONS OF

HIS ANSWERS

As noted above, Kimberlin initially responded to the Courts Order to Compel

his compliance with discovery by resubmitting his initial set of answers. See

Plaintiffs Motion for Show Cause, Docket Item 111/0, Exs. B and C. Examination

of the two sets of answers provided in December and January shows that they are

identical, except for the location of Kimberlins signatures with respect to the

printed signature block. The two documents were clearly signed at different times

4 Additionally, line 11b of Part VIII of the 2015 Justice Through Music Project IRS
Form 990 (Exhibit A) shows $21,688 of revenue from a settlement in lawsuit. On
information and belief, Justice Through Music Project has not been a party to any
lawsuit since 2012, and it did not receive a settlement from that case. Most likely,
these funds were actually derived from a settlement from one of the four lawsuits
Kimberlin filed since 2013 which included Mr. Hoge as a defendant. Why would a
settlement have been paid to Justice Through Music Project if it were not a shadow
plaintiff in one of those cases? One of Kimberlins claims in his first RICO action
against Mr. Hoge was that he had been injured by a loss of donations to Justice
Through Music Project allegedly caused by Mr. Hoges truthful reporting on
Kimberlins past and present activities. Plaintiff has suffered injury to his name,
property and business, including, but not limited to: losing funding
opportunities, and other pecuniary and [sic] losses to real or personal property.
Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (I), Case No. 13-CV-3059-GJH. Amended
Complaint, ECF No. 2 (D.Md. Oct. 17, 2013), 152. Emphasis added.

5
which supports Mr. Hoges testimony that he received them on different days.

Exhibit C shows the two signatures side-by-side for comparison.

Thus, the timeline of relevant events is as follows: On or about 27 December,

2016, Kimberlin submitted his first set of incomplete answers to Mr. Hoges

Interrogatories. On 4 January, the Court ordered Kimberlin to comply with

discovery. On 17 January, Mr. Hoge received Kimberlins recycled first answers.

On 23 January, Mr. Hoge filed his Motion for a Show Cause Order. Mr. Hoge

served a copy of that motion on Kimberlin by mail on the 23rd. On 26 January, the

Court issued its show cause order. Also, on that date, Mr. Hoge received

Kimberlins opposition to the Motion for a Show Cause Order which had a copy of

the second version of the answers attached. There is no evidence that the new

version of the answers existed prior to Mr. Hoges serving his Motion for a Show

Cause Order on Kimberlin. Yet, Kimberlin seems to claim in his Motion to Cancel

that the copy of the new version of the answers he attached to that motion is

somehow the third copy of that version of the answers that he has sent. There is no

evidence to support his claim. Indeed, all the admissible evidence refutes it.

Given the likelihood that the second set of answers was created on or after 23

January, 2017, the fact that version claims to have been signed under penalty of

perjury on 12 January, 2017, raises suspicions of forgery and perjury.

Based on these facts, the Court should deny Kimberlins Motion to Cancel.

6
 III. THIS COURT SHOULD NOT TRUST BRETT KIMBERLIN

Brett Kimberlin is a convicted felon. His first conviction was for perjury.5

One of his subsequent convictions was for attempting to forge Department of

Defense drivers licenses.6 He admitted to forging evidence in the Kimberlin v.

Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2014) lawsuit.7 He was

caught forging a summons in Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (I), Case

No. 13-CV-3059-GJH (D.Md. 2015).8

Although he routinely accuses adverse parties of lying, 9 Kimberlin has been

called out for lying on the witness stand. Consider the following exchange he had

with Judge Mason during the recent Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V

(Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2016) trial concerning Kimberlins claim that Mr. Walker

had lied about Kimberlins criminal record:

THE COURT: You specifically said you have never been arrested,
prosecuted, or convicted of any of the crimes in his blogs, which now

5 See U.S. v. Kimberlin, 483 F.Supp. 350 (S.D.Ind. 1979), 3.

6 U.S. v. Kimberlin, 781 F.2d 1247, 1249 (7th Cir. 1985).
7This admission occurred in a motions hearing before Judge Ryon in the Kimberlin
v. Walker, et al. lawsuit on 9 April, 2014, during which Kimberlin admitted to
altering a Certified Mail receipt. The relevant portion of the hearing transcript is
reproduced in Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (I), Case No. 13-CV-3059-
GJH, Supplemental Memorandum, ECF No. 124 (D.Md. Apr. 28, 2014) at 2, 3.
Exhibit G. The entire hearing transcript is available on PACER as ECF No. 124-1.
8Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (I), Response to Show Cause Order,
ECF No. 102, Mar. 11, 2014. Exhibit H.
9 As the Court can see from Exhibit B, Kimberlin has recently accused Mr. Hoges
counsel in the appeal of Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (II) case of lying
to the Court of Special Appeals.

7
 puts at issue you having testified that hes lied about everything hes
ever blogged about you, the bombing.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Your Honor, thats, that was not my intent at

all.

THE COURT: But that is what you said in front of this jury, sir,
that everything hes ever posted about you is a lie is what you
testified, and that's why I specifically note even the time that you
said it, because it creates an enormous issue in the case.

And you had asked, and I had kept out any reference to the earlier
Speedway bombing case, but you now have denied having been
convicted, arrested, or prosecuted for any offense that he blogged.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I, Id like, I, my intent was to talk about

anything to do with sexual, any --

THE COURT: That is not what you testified to in front of the jury.
Okay.

THE COURT: So --

MR. WALKER: One more --

THE COURT: -- and for tomorrow, Ben, you got to in CourtSmart

find that. Its at roughly 4:18 this afternoon is when he testified to
it.

THE LAW CLERK: Sure.

THE COURT: But Id just like that piece for me so we can go direct
there tomorrow morning.

MR. WALKER: Yeah.

THE COURT: If you doubt that you said it, I can play it back for
you precisely what you said.

Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Trial Transcript, Oct. 12, 2016, at 271 - 273. Transcript

extract attached as Exhibit D. In conjunction with Kimberlins taking the stand

8
again the next day, Judge Mason excused the jury for a conference with the parties

that ended with the following exchange:

THE COURT: Wait. If you, Mr. Kimberlin, want to take the stand
and, under oath, dispute that you were convicted of these offenses,
then I may well not let him use them. But if youre lying under
oath, you will subjecting yourself to prosecution for perjury.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Hed love that.

THE COURT: Im just telling you. Not, if you go up there and

youre, if you can say, truthfully, you were not convicted, fine.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Your Honor, you are being very unfair to me.
This man has, this --

THE COURT: Mr. Kimberlin, Im not going to listen to this. As

Ive explained, you may think Im being very unfair to you. I have
bent over backwards to try and be very fair to both sides in this
case, including not granting a motion for summary judgment,
probably at a time when I should have, because you had violated,
and your wife had violated, the rules left and right.

But as a matter of discretion, and I said, I think, in fairness, even

though he probably is entitled to a motion for summary judgment,
this is a case that should be tried by a jury, and a jury should hear
this, and let them decide.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.

THE COURT: So I do not what to hear that --

MR. KIMBERLIN: I have --

THE COURT: -- I have been unfair to you. I kept this out, that
information out entirely, although I thought it was probative, until
you opened the door by lying to the jury.

MR. KIMBERLIN: I didnt lie.

THE COURT: You did lie, sir.

9
 Lets get the jury.

Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Trial Transcript, Oct. 13, 2016, at 17, 18. Transcript

extract attached as Exhibit E. Kimberlin brazenly maintained to Judge Mason that

he did not lie, even when the judge was an eyewitness to Kimberlins false

statement and had the courtroom audio recording to backup his recollection of

Kimberlins statement. It seems that so far as Kimberlin was concerned, the

evidence had no bearing on the truth of the matter.

Moreover, he has shown a similar disregard for the truth in his Motion to

Cancel, going so far as to accuse Mr. Hoge of lying without producing a scintilla of

evidence to support that allegation. He wants this Court to trust the unsworn word

of a convicted perjurer about a document produced by an admitted forger.

Kimberlin, whose felony convictions include one for perjury, has claimed that

Mr. Hoge is lying but has offered no evidence or sworn testimony to support his

allegations. On the other hand, Mr. Hoge, who has never been convicted of

anything more serious than a traffic violation, has endeavored to back up all of his

allegations with either documentary evidence or sworn testimony. Especially on the

points that might hinge on the evaluation of one persons credibility versus

anothers, the Court should favor the word of the party who has played by the rules

over that of someone who has proven record of obfuscation, perjury, forgery, and

flouting the rules.

Thus, the Court should be skeptical of Kimberlins statements, but it should

give him an opportunity to produce evidence and to make his case under oath. The

10
Court should deny Kimberlins Motion to Cancel and should hold the show cause

hearing as scheduled.

IV. TWO ADDITIONAL MATTERS

Mr. Hoge wishes to make the Court aware of a couple of tangentially related

matters which provide additional evidence of Kimberlins lack of trustworthiness.

Kimberlins Certificate of Service attached to his Motion to Cancel states that

he served Mr. Hoge by certified mail return receipt. That is false. A copy of the

face of the envelope which Mr. Hoge received containing the service of the motion is

attached as Exhibit F. It has two units of postage (Forever stamps) attached.

While that is sufficient postage for normal First Class Mail, it is insufficient postage

for either Certified Mail or Return Receipt, let alone for both. Kimberlin has made

another misrepresentation to the Court.

Also, Kimberlin has insisted that his address is 8100 Beech Tree Road,

Bethesda, Maryland 20817. However, the Montgomery County Sheriffs Office was

unable to serve the Complaint and Summons on him at that address last year. See

Affidavit (Defendant Evading Service), Docket Item 19. On information and belief,

Kimberlin has been residing at 6519 79th Place, Cabin John, Maryland 20818, for

over a year. Mr. Hoge provided that address as well as an office address10 to the

Montgomery County Sheriffs Office as alternate addresses for service of the Show

Cause Order, and the MCSO was able to serve Kimberlin. Kimberlin continues to

provide a false address to the Court.

10 6513 79th Place, Cabin John, Maryland 20818.

11
 CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge requests the Court to deny Defendant Brett

Kimberlins Motion to Cancel Show Cause Hearing and to grant such other relief as

the Court may find just and proper.

Date: 14 February, 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 14th day of February, 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 (last known address)

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 known address)

William John Joseph Hoge

12
 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: 14 February, 2016

William John Joseph Hoge

13
 Exhibit A
Extract from the 2015 IRS Form 990 for Justice Through Music Project.
 Exhibit B
Summary tab of theProperties window of a court paper from Brett Kimberlin served
on Mr. Hoge through his counsel in Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club (II).
 Exhibit C
Comparison of signatures on the two copies of the original set of Answers to
Interrogatories received from Brett Kimberlin by Mr. Hoge. The December copy is
on the left.
 Exhibit D
Extract from the trial transcript in Walker v. Kimberlin, Case No. 398855V
(Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Oct. 12, 2016).
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------X
:
AARON WALKER, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil No. 398855
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL., :
:
Defendants. :
:
------------------------------X

JURY TRIAL

Rockville, Maryland October 12, 2016

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210
Germantown, Maryland 20874
(301) 881-3344
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------X
:
AARON WALKER, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil No. 398855
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL., :
:
Defendants. :
:
------------------------------X

Rockville, Maryland

October 12, 2016

WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled

matter commenced

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE MICHAEL D. MASON, JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

AARON WALKER, Pro Se

7587 Remington Road
Manassas, Virginia 20109

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

BRETT KIMBERLIN, Pro Se

TETYANA KIMBERLIN, Pro Se
8100 Beech Tree Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20817
 I N D E X

WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

For the Plaintiff:

Aaron Walker -- 24,135 159 161

William John Joseph
Hoge 167 172,175 -- --

For the Defendant:

William John Joseph

Hoge 187 221 -- --
Brett Kimberlin 228 -- -- --

EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED

For the Plaintiff:

Exhibit No. 1 -- 13
Exhibit No. 2 -- 13
Exhibit No. 3 -- 17
Exhibit No. 4 21 21
Exhibit No. 5 -- 22
Exhibit No. 6 -- 24

For the Defendant:

Exhibit No. 1 -- 37
Exhibit No. 2 -- 41
Exhibit No. 10 -- 79
Exhibit No. 11 -- 83
Exhibit No. 17 -- 106
Exhibit No. 18 -- 105
Exhibit No. 19 -- 107
Exhibit No. 26 -- 114
Exhibit No. 30 -- 164
Exhibit No. 41 -- 246
Exhibit No. 42 -- 250
 271

1 privilege issue, twice you have testified as to what your wife

2 told you with respect to you said she talked to you at a time

3 when she told you to go to the clinic after he beat you up.

4 And, then, more importantly, you testified that at a

5 time after she showed you an e-mail that he had sent her that

6 she told you, and I think also, no, sorry, you were talking

7 about the documents that you said he had prepared for her, she

8 told you all that information was false, and not true. You've

9 waived the marital privilege with respect to those

10 communications with your wife, okay?

11 The other thing is, in your testimony, you testified

12 to this jury that you have never been convicted, prosecuted --

13 arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of any of the crimes that he

14 mentioned in his blog. Now --

15 MR. KIMBERLIN: No, I said any sexual crimes.

16 THE COURT: You did not.

17 MR. WALKER: No.

18 MR. KIMBERLIN: I didn't say any.

19 THE COURT: It's at 4:18, Madam Clerk, we can pull it

20 up on CourtSmart. Actually, I'll have my clerk pull it up

21 while they key it up for tomorrow, but you did not limit it to

22 sexual crimes.

23 MR. KIMBERLIN: Oh, well.

24 THE COURT: You specifically said you have never been

25 arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of any of the crimes in his

 272

1 blogs, which now puts at issue you having testified that he's

2 lied about everything he's ever blogged about you, the bombing.

3 MR. KIMBERLIN: Your Honor, that's, that was not my

4 intent at all.

5 THE COURT: But that is what you said in front of

6 this jury, sir, that everything he's ever posted about you is a

7 lie is what you testified, and that's why I specifically note

8 even the time that you said it, because it creates an enormous

9 issue in the case.

10 And you had asked, and I had kept out any reference

11 to the earlier Speedway bombing case, but you now have denied

12 having been convicted, arrested, or prosecuted for any offense

13 that he blogged.

14 MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, I, I'd like, I, my intent was

15 to talk about anything to do with sexual, any --

16 THE COURT: That is not what you testified to in

17 front of the jury. Okay.

18 THE COURT: So --

19 MR. WALKER: One more --

20 THE COURT: -- and for tomorrow, Ben, you got to in

21 CourtSmart find that. It's at roughly 4:18 this afternoon is

22 when he testified to it.

23 THE LAW CLERK: Sure.

24 THE COURT: But I'd just like that piece for me so we

25 can go direct there tomorrow morning.

 273

1 MR. WALKER: Yeah.

2 THE COURT: If you doubt that you said it, I can play

3 it back for you precisely what you said.

4 MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, and, and if I said, if I said

5 it in that, in that way, then I should correct it. And you're

6 telling me about it, and I can correct it, because, obviously,

7 my intent, I was talking about pedophilia, and sex offenses,

8 and things like that at the time, and I meant that I had never

9 been arrested or, or charged, arrested, or convicted, or

10 sentenced for any type of sex offense.

11 THE COURT: Yes. Okay. Well, I mean I say okay

12 you'll say that you can do that. I'm not agreeing that that's

13 the solution to what --

14 MR. KIMBERLIN: I mean --

15 THE COURT: -- you have done.

16 MR. KIMBERLIN: -- I mean --

17 THE COURT: But the other thing is then you have to

18 provide also a clean copy of that transcript for tomorrow,

19 because the one that you earlier provided to the Court is

20 marked up.

21 And did you make a copy of the transcript?

22 THE LAW CLERK: I haven't had a chance to.

23 MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, why don't you just --

24 MR. WALKER: I mean I'm okay with they marked up

25 copy.
 279
Digitally signed by Pat Ives

DIGITALLY SIGNED CERTIFICATE

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. hereby certifies that the

attached pages represent an accurate transcript of the

electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the Circuit

Court for Montgomery County in the matter of:

Civil No. 398855

AARON WALKER

v.

BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL.

By:

_________________________
PAT IVES
Transcriber
 Exhibit E
Extract from the trial transcript in Walker v. Kimberlin, Case No. 398855V
(Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Oct. 13, 2016).
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------X
:
AARON WALKER, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil No. 398855
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL., :
:
Defendants. :
:
------------------------------X

JURY TRIAL

Rockville, Maryland October 13, 2016

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210
Germantown, Maryland 20874
(301) 881-3344
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------X
:
AARON WALKER, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil No. 398855
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL., :
:
Defendants. :
:
------------------------------X

Rockville, Maryland

October 13, 2016

WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled

matter commenced

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE MICHAEL D. MASON, JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

AARON WALKER, Pro se

7537 Remington Road
Manassas, Virginia 20109

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

BRETT KIMBERLIN, Pro se

8100 Beech Tree Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20917
 I N D E X
Page

WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

For the Defendants:

Brett Kimberlin 20 61 183 191

Rebuttal for the Plaintiff:

Tetyana Kimberlin 196 206 -- --

EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED

For the Plaintiff:

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

For the Defendant:

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 --
 17

1 MR. KIMBERLIN: Your Honor --

2 THE COURT: And if that's your --

3 MR. KIMBERLIN: Your Honor --

4 THE COURT: Wait. If you, Mr. Kimberlin, want to

5 take the stand and, under oath, dispute that you were convicted

6 of these offenses, then I may well not let him use them. But

7 if you're lying under oath, you will subjecting yourself to

8 prosecution for perjury.

9 MR. KIMBERLIN: He'd love that.

10 THE COURT: I'm just telling you. Not, if you go up

11 there and you're, if you can say, truthfully, you were not

12 convicted, fine.

13 MR. KIMBERLIN: Your Honor, you are being very unfair

14 to me. This man has, this --

15 THE COURT: Mr. Kimberlin, I'm not going to listen to

16 this. As I've explained, you may think I'm being very unfair

17 to you. I have bent over backwards to try and be very fair to

18 both sides in this case, including not granting a motion for

19 summary judgment, probably at a time when I should have,

20 because you had violated, and your wife had violated, the rules

21 left and right.

22 But as a matter of discretion, and I said, I think,

23 in fairness, even though he probably is entitled to a motion

24 for summary judgment, this is a case that should be tried by a

25 jury, and a jury should hear this, and let them decide.
 18

1 MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay.

2 THE COURT: So I do not what to hear that --

3 MR. KIMBERLIN: I have --

4 THE COURT: -- I have been unfair to you. I kept

5 this out, that information out entirely, although I thought it

6 was probative, until you opened the door by lying to the jury.

7 MR. KIMBERLIN: I didn't lie.

8 THE COURT: You did lie, sir.

9 Let's get the jury.

10 THE CLERK: And Your Honor, just to correct the

11 record, those exhibits should be 43 and 44, not 44 and 45.

12 THE COURT: Whatever the next two exhibits are, I

13 don't know what the numbers are, but those next two exhibits

14 will be the transcript of Kelsie Kimberlin's testimony and

15 Judge Creighton's opinion.

16 (The documents referred to were

17 marked as Defendant's Exhibit

18 Nos. 43 and 44 for

19 identification.)

20 MR. KIMBERLIN: And could I get those exhibits again

21 in front of me, Your Honor?

22 MR. WALKER: So they'll be, they'll be -- oh, never

23 mind.

24 THE COURT: And what we can do so there's no delay

25 is, I'll let you take up the transcript, and you can refer to
 225
Digitally signed by Kimberly L. Chwirut

DIGITALLY SIGNED CERTIFICATE

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. hereby certifies that the

attached pages represent an accurate transcript of the

electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the Circuit

Court for Montgomery County in the matter of:

Civil No. 398855

AARON WALKER

v.

BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL.

By:

_________________________
KIMBERLY L. CHWIRUT
Transcriber
 Exhibit F
Copy of the face of the envelope Mr. Hoge received via mail from Brett
Kimberlin on 10 February, 2017.
 Exhibit G
Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (I), Case No. 13-CV-3059-GJH,
Supplemental Memorandum, ECF No. 124 (D. Md. Apr. 28, 2014)
 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124 Filed 04/28/14 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GREENBELT DIVISION

BRETT KIMBERLIN, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * Civil Action
PWG 13-3059
NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, et al., *

Defendants *

* * * * * * * * * *

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANTS MICHELLE MALKIN AND

TWITCHY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL (ECF No. 41)

Michael F. Smith
The Smith Appellate Law Firm
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1025
Washington, D.C. 20006
smith@smithpllc.com
(202) 454-2860
Bar No. 29941
Counsel for Defendants
Michelle Malkin and Twitchy

Date: April 28, 2014

 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124 Filed 04/28/14 Page 2 of 5

Mr. Kimberlin has pending a Maryland state-court action against various defendants in this case,

though not Mrs. Malkin or Twitchy. Kimberlin v. Walker et al., Montgomery Cir. Case No. 380966. At

an April 9, 2014 oral argument on defendant Ali Akbar's motion to dismiss that case, he admitted

altering a Postal Service return-of-service card in connection with his purported service of the complaint

on Mr. Akbar, to indicate he had requested "restricted delivery" before filing it with the court:

THE COURT: Did you alter the return receipts between docket entry 38 and 50
whatever, did you change them?

MR. KIMBERLIN: I did not change them intentionally. When I go to the post office, I
ask them to do it so it's registered or whatever it's called, restricted
delivery, and they did not do it. [Defendant Akbar is] saying that
there's an extra fee. I've never paid an extra fee for restricted
delivery. I've sent literally 50 or 100 of these things and never
once faked a [unintelligible] restricted delivery, but, you know,
Mr. Akbar here sitting right there that this was sent in January 2nd
to Mr. Akbar. It came back, it's restricted delivery. This one here
is January 25th, again, Mr. Akbar came back restricted delivery,
you know, undeliverable. And you know he keeps accusing me of
not paying the extra fee.

THE COURT: This isn't about paying a fee.

MR. KIMBERLIN: That's what he said.

THE COURT: This is about the exact same brief green card being filed -- the
support motions you filed, the different docket entries, one
showing the restricted delivery box checked and one not.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Your honor, like I said I asked the post office to send it restricted
delivery.

THE COURT: You're not answering my question.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, I changed --

THE COURT: Did you change it?

MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, I did.

1
 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124 Filed 04/28/14 Page 3 of 5

THE COURT: And then you filed it representing that it accurately reflected the
green card that had been filled out.

MR. KIMBERLIN: No, no, no, I filed it and accurately said -- it accurately reflected
what I told the post office to do and that's what it is. You know,
like I said I'm a pro se litigant and --

THE COURT: Don't even use that with me.

MR. KIMBERLIN: Okay, okay --

THE COURT: You know it's one thing to say I'm pro se so I don't understand
rules or I don't understand how to get something in and the rules of
evidence and another thing to alter something and file it.... [Ex A,
TR 4/9/14, pp 21-23 (emphasis added)].

DISCUSSION

I. Mr. Kimberlin's statements show a pattern of misconduct that undermines his defense of
inadvertent pro se mistake, and supports dismissal and/or a significant monetary sanction.

After first ignoring the allegations regarding the Twitchy summons, ECF 67, Mr. Kimberlin

admitted forging it but offered this Court various excuses, including his pro-se status. ECF 102

Response. But as his comments to the state court show, Mr. Kimberlin's falsification of the summons is

part of a pattern of similar litigation misconduct that vitiates the defense he has proffered here.

In the state court, as in this Court, Mr. Kimberlin when caught in misconduct sought refuge

behind his pro-se status. Ex A, TR 4/9/14, pp. 14, 22; also ECF 102 Response, pp. 1-2. In both courts,

he claimed his action was necessitated by a public employee's improbable neglect of his or her routine

duties. Ex A, TR 4/9/14, pp. 21-22 (postal clerk failed to honor his request for restricted delivery); ECF

102 Response, pp. 1-2 (deputy clerk of this Court failed to issue Twitchy summons). In both courts he

assumed a chastened air and said he had learned his lesson but only after a defendant was forced to

expend resources exposing his conduct, and extracting an admission of wrongdoing. Ex A, TR 4/9/14,

pp. 22, 25 ("I understand"); ECF 102 Response, pp. 1-2 (private session with Clerk for summons

2
 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124 Filed 04/28/14 Page 4 of 5

instruction). And in each court he has blamed the victim of his unsuccessful deception for complaining

about it. Ex A, TR 4/9/14, pg. 22 (criticizing Mr. Akbar for supposedly objecting that he failed to pay

for restricted delivery); ECF 111-1 Response, pg. 1 (Twitchy is being "petty" and "wasting the court's

time" in continuing to seek dismissal and sanctions).

This Court's inherent authority "extends to a full range of litigation abuses," Chambers v. Nasco,

Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46 (1991), and a pattern of litigation misconduct may justify dismissal under it.

Vargas v. Peltz, 901 F. Supp. 1572, 1579-82 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (persistent pattern of misconduct by

plaintiff and her husband that amounted to fraud on the court, including fabrication of evidence, perjury,

and repeated false deposition testimony) (collecting cases); Riverside Mem. Mausoleum, Inc. v.

Sonnenblick-Goldman Corp., 80 F.R.D. 433, 435-436 (E.D. Pa. 1978) (dismissal justified by plaintiff's

pattern of ignoring court orders and deadlines). The April 9 hearing transcript establishes such a pattern,

and shows that falsification of the Twitchy summons was no innocent or accidental pro-se mistake. It

warrants the strongest possible sanction, up to and including dismissal.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael F. Smith

Michael F. Smith
The Smith Appellate Law Firm
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1025
Washington, D.C. 20006
smith@smithpllc.com
(202) 454-2860
Bar No. 29941
Counsel for Defendants Michelle Malkin
and Twitchy
Date: April 28, 2014

3
 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 124 Filed 04/28/14 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Supplemental Memorandum and its Ex

A was electronically filed in this case on April 28, 2014 and thus served on counsel of record via the

Court's ECF system. Additionally, I am serving the document via email this date on plaintiff Kimberlin

and on defendants Hoge, McCain, and Walker by the express permission of each.

By: /s/ Michael F. Smith

Dated: April 28, 2014

4
 Exhibit H
Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (I), Case No. 13-CV-3059-GJH, Response
to Show Cause Order, ECF No. 102 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2014)
 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 102 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 3

('
. '.,-,
, .. I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GREENBELT DIVISION

BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,

v. No. PWG 13 3059

NATIONAL BLOGGERSCLUB,et al
Defendants.

VERIFIED RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 21,2014 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re

TWITCHY SUMMONS

Now comes Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin and responds to this Court's Order to

Show Cause regarding service on Defendant Twitchy.

1. Plaintiff has apologized to counsel for Defendant Twitchy on several

occasions for the mistake he made when serving Twitchy. Plaintiff explained

to counsel that the mistake was not in any way done with an intent to

mislead. Instead, it was a misunderstanding of the process, which Plaintiff as

a pro se litigant did not understand, but now understands full well.

2. Plaintiff did include Defendant Twitchy in the Complaint in several

paragraphs as a named Defendant but Plaintiff inadvertently left Twitchy off

the caption. As soon as counsel for Twitchy notified Plaintiff about the error

in service, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Correct Caption to add Twitchy, which

this Court granted in its Letter Order of February 21, 2014. The Court also

found that Twitchy was not prejudiced by the error in service.

3. When the Clerk initially sent Plaintiff 21 summons, Plaintiff spent hours

compiling them with the Complaints, the envelopes and certified cards only
 Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 102 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 3

to discover that the summons for Twitchy was missing. At the time, Plaintiff

assumed that the Clerk had inadvertently forgotten to include that summons

since Twitchy was named as a Defendant in the Complaint and Twitchy's

address was listed in paragraph 25 of the Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff

typed the address on a summons and included it with the Complaint to

Defendant Twitchy and sent it certified to that address.

4. Plaintiff has since discussed this with the Clerk of the Court and was told that

a summons can only be filled out by a party using Form A0440 and then

submitted to the Clerk for signature.

5. Plaintiff apologizes once again to Defendant Twitchy and counsel, and to the

Court for this misunderstanding. Plaintiff assures the Court that this will not

occur again. In fact, with today's filing, Plaintiff is submitting six A0440

Summons Forms to the Clerk for signature so Plaintiff can initiate service of

the Second Amended Complaint to several of the Defendants named in that

Complaint who have not yet accepted service.

6. Plaintiff urges this Court not to impose sanctions on Plaintiff since this was

an honest mistake, he is proceeding pro se and was unaware of the proper

procedure, he has learned from the mistake, he has apologized to all parties,

and Defendant Twitchy was not prejudiced.

Respectfully submitted,

Brett Ki in
8100 Beech Tree Rd
Bethesda, MD 20817
(301) 320 5921
justjcejtmp@comcast.net
Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 102 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 3

Verification

I Brett Kimberlin certify under penalty of perjury pursuant to the

provisions of 28 USC1746, that the above is true and corr

Dated this 11day of March, 2014 Brett Ki

Certificate of Service

I certify that I have served a copy of this Response on Lee Stranahan, Ron

Coleman, Catilyn Contestable, Michael Smith, and Mark Bailen by email, and

on Defendants Hoge, The Franklin Center, McCain and Walker by First Class

mail this 11th day of March, 2014.

Brett Kimberlin