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 REPLY TO DEFENDANTS BRETT AND TETYANA KIMBERLINS

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and replies to Defendants Brett and
Tetyana Kimberlins Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Strike (Docket Item 63/1). In
reply Mr. Hoge states as follows:
I. THE KIMBERLINS HAVE FAILED TO OFFER ANY REASON WHY THEIR SECOND
ANSWER SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN
In his Motion to Strike (Docket Item 63) Mr. Hoge shows that the Kimberlins
second Answer is untimely and improper. Moreover, he demonstrates that even if
it were timely, it does not contain the necessary elements required by Rule 2-323(c).
The Kimberlins cite no facts or law to challenge Mr. Hoges points. Instead, they
substitute insults for arguments, informing the Court that they are not going to
waste time pretending that Plaintiff has any chance of prevailing in this case[.]
Response, 4. It appears that they want the Court to believe their opinion of the
soundness of Mr. Hoges Complainttogether with their pro se statusallows them
to pick and choose which of the Maryland Rules they will obey and which they will
ignore.

II. PRO SE LITIGANTS ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW

A recurring theme in the Kimberlins filings in this lawsuit has been that
they are entitled to special treatment because of their pro se status. While it is
proper for a court to grant a bit of grace to pro se litigants when we stumble over
technical details, the Court of Appeals has said that unrepresented litigants are
expected to follow the rules of procedure. Simms v. State, 976 A.2d 1012, 1020
(Md. 2009), n9.
The Kimberlins have no special entitlement to be exempted from the
Maryland Rules.
a. The Kimberlins Failed to File a Proper Answer Within 30 Days of
Service of Process
There is no dispute over the date the Kimberlins were served or the date an
answer or Rule 2-322 motion was due. There is no dispute over the fact that the
Kimberlins did not file a timely Rule 2-322 motion. The Kimberlins would have the
Court accept their first Answer as proper, yet they have filed a second Answer in
an attempt to correct the deficiencies in the first. That is an admission that they
failed file a proper pleading with their first Answer. Thus, they failed to file a
timely pleading.
b. The Kimberlins Second Answer is Untimely
There is no dispute that the Kimberlins filed their second Answer on 27
June, 2016. That was 53 days after service of process was effected and over three

weeks after the time to plead had expired. The Kimberlins offer no explanation of
how that is consistent the requirements of Rule 2-321. They cant because it isnt.
c. The Kimberlins Second Answer is an Improper Attempt to Amend
Their First Answer
Even if the Kimberlins were to try to argue that their second Answer is
really an amendment to the first, that would be improper under Rule 2-341(e).
They have not provided a comparison copy of the amended pleading showing by
lining through or enclosing in brackets the material deleted, and they have not set
off the new material by underlining or bold-face text.
Thats probably not an uncommon error for a pro se party to make. However,
Brett Kimberlin is an experienced pro se litigant who has previously filed amended
pleadings in Maryland Circuit Courts.1 He has no excuse for such an omission.
Thus, for any and all of the reasons cited above, the Kimberlins second
Answer (Docket Item 1/2) should be stricken.
III. THE KIMBERLINS RESPONSE CONTAINS IMPROPER, IMMATERIAL,
IMPERTINENT, AND SCANDALOUS MATERIAL
Once again, lacking any facts or law to support their argument, the
Kimberlins have resorted to ad hominem attacks and outright falsehoods in their
Response. They open with an evidence-free reference to Mr. Hoge as a serial

See, e.g., Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V, Amended Complaint,
Docket Item 17 (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Oct. 15, 2013); Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.,
Case No. 380966V, Second Amended Complaint, Docket Item 123 (Md. Cir.Ct.
Mont. Co. Apr. 1, 2014); and Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al., Case No.
403868V, Amended Complaint, Docket Item 91 (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Sept. 14,
2015).
3

harasser (Response, 1.) and move on to labeling him nuttier than a

fruitcake (Response, 6.),2 suggesting that this Court is tolerating Mr. Hoges
lunacy. Id.
The recurring myth of almost 400 criminal charge has already been
thoroughly debunked. See Docket Item 47/1. However, some of the falsehoods in
the Kimberlins Response, such as the new assertion that Mr. Hoge has made false
allegation against Brett Kimberlin in the Motion to Strike, should be addressed.
The Kimberlins appear to be referring to the citations to the public record
found on pages 2 and 3 of Mr. Hoges Motion to Strike. Each of those citations is
valid, and each backs up the allegation with which it is associated. For example,
Brett Kimberlin, also known as The Speedway Bomber, really is a convicted serial
bomber.
Kimberlin was convicted as the so-called Speedway Bomber, who
terrorized the city of Speedway, Indiana, by detonating a series of
explosives in early September 1978. In the worst incident,
Kimberlin placed one of his bombs in a gym bag, and left it in a
parking lot outside Speedway High School. Carl Delong was
leaving the high school football game with his wife when he
attempted to pick up the bag and it exploded. The blast tore off his
lower right leg and two fingers, and embedded bomb fragments in
2

Its not surprising that Brett Kimberlin would attack the mental stability of an
adverse party. It has been a common tactic for him through the years. For
example, in the Application for Statement of Charges underlying Count I of the
Complaint he wrote: 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[.]
Complaint, 29. At the time that Application for Statement of Charges was filed,
Mrs. Kimberlin was estranged from her husband and engaged in dueling Protective
Orders with him. What was surprising in the instant lawsuit was that a Petition
for Emergency Evaluation was filed by his associate and codefendant William
Schmalfeldt rather than by Kimberlin himself.
4

his wife's leg. He was hospitalized for six weeks, during which he
was forced to undergo nine operations to complete the amputation
of his leg, reattach two fingers, repair damage to his inner ear, and
remove bomb fragments from his stomach, chest, and arm. In
February 1983, he committed suicide.
Kimberlin v. White, 7 F.3d 527, 528-29 (6th Cir. 1993).
He actually was convicted of multiple federal crimes that resulted in a 50+
year aggregated sentence.
After being convicted of the bombings and related offenses,
Kimberlin was sentenced to a fifty-year term of imprisonment for
manufacturing and possessing a destructive device, and malicious
damage by explosives with personal injury in violation of 26 U.S.C.
5861(d) and (f), and 18 U.S.C. 844(f) and (i). He received a
concurrent twelve-year sentence for impersonating a federal officer,
illegal use of a Department of Defense insignia, and illegal use of
the Presidential Seal in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912, 701, and 713,
respectively, and a five-year term for receipt of explosives by a
convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 842(i)(1). Finally, he was
given a four-year sentence by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas on an earlier, unrelated conviction
for conspiracy to distribute marijuana.
Kimberlin v. White, 7 F.3d at 529. Also see Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F Supp.2d 487,
489-90 (D.Md. 1998).
Brett Kimberlins parole really was revoked, and he was returned to prison.
Finally, the examiner found that petitioners settlement offers were
not undertaken in good faith; concluded that petitioner had resisted
parole supervision by Officer Ramsburg in every way he can, and
recommended revocation of parole with a presumptive parole date
of two years. Petitioner was taken into custody at the conclusion of
the hearing.
On June 27, 1997 the Commission adopted the examiner's
recommendation, revoking petitioners parole and continuing him to
a presumptive parole date of June 5, 1999.

Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F Supp.2d 487, 494 (D.Md. 1998), citations omitted.

In fact, Brett Kimberlin has admitted in open court that he is a convicted
felon. During his opening argument in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. defamation
trail, he said, I am also a felon. I was convicted 35 years ago for something
serious. Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V, Trial Transcript, Day 2
(Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Aug. 12, 2014) at 17. Extract attached as Exhibit A. Brett
Kimberlin seems to believe that he should be allowed to tell one court one story and
another court another about his criminal history.
The absurd claim that Mr. Hoge has made false allegations against Brett
Kimberlin by citing settled cases is yet more evidence demonstrating the
Kimberlins bad faith, first, in their Answers and, second, in their Response.
The Kimberlins continuing claim that Mr. Hoge has engaged in
cyberstalking of members of their family is also improper. Indeed, such a claim is
barred by res judicata as a result of the dismissal with prejudice of Mr. Hoge as a
defendant in Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al., Case No. 403868V, Docket
Item 196 (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Apr., 7, 2016) because he made an essentially
identical claim in that suit. Moreover, the Kimberlins out-of-context quoting of
Judge Creightons remarks made during the trial for their unsuccessful appeal of
the Peace Order sought against Mr. Hoge in 2015 is misleading and serves no
purpose other than adding scandalous matter to their filing.3

A true and correct copy of Judge Creightons denial of the Peace Order Petition is
attached as Exhibit B.
6

It is possible that the Court might choose sua sponte to strike the Kimberlins
Response because of its improprieties. However, Mr. Hoge asks that it be kept as
part of the record to preserve an example of the their bad faith.
IV. NONE OF THE IMPROPER, IMMATERIAL, IMPERTINENT, AND SCANDALOUS
MATERIAL IN THE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE IS GERMANE TO MR. HOGES MOTION
Not one bit of the Kimberlins hand-wringing and arm-waving has any
bearing on the substance of Mr. Hoges motion. Defendants Brett and Tetyana
Kimberlin and William Schmalfeldt may believe that Mr. Hoges filings are the
disjointed ravings of a madman filed for the purpose of harassing them, but they
havent offered any evidence to support that proposition. Insults are not a proper
substitute for reasoned argument. Even if Mr. Hoge were nuttier than a
fruitcake, that has no bearing on whether the Kimberlins second Answer was
timely filed or whether it is proper or whether the Court should strike it. As noted
above, the Kimberlins have not cited any facts or law to support their opposition to
Mr. Hoges Motion to Strike. Exhibit C is a copy of their Response (as served on Mr.
Hoge) with the improper material and assertions unsupported by facts or law
redacted. There isnt much left. For all practical purposes, Mr. Hoges motion is
unopposed.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge requests the Court to STRIKE Docket Item 1/2
(Defendants Answer to Plaintiff Hoges Complaint) and to GRANT such other relief
as the Court may find just and proper.

Date: 15 July, 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 15th day of July, 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)
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 known 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: 15 July, 2016
William John Joseph Hoge

Exhibit A
Extract from the Day Two Trial Transcript for Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No.
380966V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Aug., 12, 2014).

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------X
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
AARON WALKER,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
------------------------------X

Civil No. 380966

Jury Trial

Rockville, Maryland

August 1, 2014

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210
Germantown, Maryland 20874
(301) 881-3344

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------X
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
AARON WALKER,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
------------------------------X

Civil No. 380966

Rockville, Maryland
August 1, 2014
WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled
matter commenced
BEFORE:

THE HONORABLE ERIC M. JOHNSON, JUDGE

APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, Pro se
8100 Beech Tree Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20817
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
PATRICK F. OSTRONIC, Esq.
932 Hungerford Drive, Suite 28A
Rockville, Maryland 20850

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

APPEARANCES:
ALI AKBAR, Pro se
200 Capstone Drive Suite 108
Lynchburg, Virginia 24502

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

I N D E X
Page
Opening Statements:
Brett Kimberlin, Pro se

17

Patrick F. Ostronic, Esq.

For the Defendant

13

Akbar Ali, Pro se

27

WITNESSES

RECROSS

VOIR
DIRE

--

--

--

147

149

--

--

197

201

210

--

DIRECT

CROSS

53

--

William Hoge, Sr.

132

Ali Akbar

151

Stacy McCain

158

Kelsie Kimberlin

218

REDIRECT

For the Plaintiff:

Aaron Walker

For the Defendant:

(None)

EXHIBITS

MARKED

RECEIVED

For the Plaintiff:

Exhibit No. 2
Exhibit No. 12
Exhibit No. 19
For the Defendant:
(None)

63
112
139

----

Page
Closing Arguments:
Ali Akbar, Pro se

263

For the Defendant

(None)

--

Judge's Ruling

12, 266

cgg

17

evidence.

Please respond.

THE JURY:

Yes.

THE CLERK:

of the jury are you all sworn?

Please be seated.

Ladies and gentlemen

THE JURY:

Yes.

THE CLERK:

Thank you.

THE COURT:

All right, sir, you may address the jury.

OPENING STATEMENT BY BRETT KIMBERLIN, Pro se

MR. KIMBERLIN:

10

THE JURY:

11

MR. KIMBERLIN:

Good morning.

Good morning.
I'm a

12

father.

13

called Justice Through Music.

14

them involved with civic participation.

15

State Department, brought democracy activists acrossed

16

(phonetic sp.) the world so that they could get training at my

17

non-profit.

18

music for different movies, independent movies.

19

of videos.

20

views.

21

I'm a husband.

My name is Brett Kimberlin.

I'm the director of a non-profit

We work with young people to get
We've worked with the

I'm also a musician, a composer.

Ive composed
I create a lot

I created videos on You Tube that have millions of

I'm also a felon.

I was convicted 35 years ago for

22

something serious.

And at that time it was something I didn't

23

do.

24

found guilty finally after three.

25

case.

I fought the case.

I went through three trials.

I was

It was a very controversial

It involved the use of hypnosis on witnesses.

Six

cgg

272

Digitally signed by Caroline G Gibson

DIGITALLY SIGNED CERTIFICATE
DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. hereby certifies that the

foregoing pages represent an accurate transcript of the

duplicated electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County in the matter of:
Civil No. 380966
BRETT KIMBERLIN
v.
AARON WALKER

By:

_________________________
Caroline G Gibson
Transcriber

Exhibit B
Order denying Peace Order Petition. Kimberlin v. Hoge, Case No. 9148D (Md.
Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. May 14, 2015).

Exhibit C
Docket Item 63/1 (as served on Plaintiff) with improper material and assertions
unsupported by facts or law redacted.