IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CARROLL COUNTY WILLIAM HOGE, Plaintiff, v No 0616070789 BRETT KIMBERLIN, et al, Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENT TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS Now come Defendants Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin and supplement their Motion to Dismiss. 1. Plaintiff Hoge is the paralegal for a Virginia attorney named Aaron Walker. As noted in other pleadings, Hoge and Walker have filed close to 400 civil, criminal, contempt and peace orders against Defendants and their associates over the past four years, all of which have been tossed out of court by one means or another. Defendants now want to bring to the Court's attention three of those dismissals. First, Federal Judge Motz in 2012 told Mr. Walker that the federal court would not get involved with his “political disputes” with Defendant Brett Kimberlin, He dismissed Plaintiff's suit out of hand even before dispositive motions were filed. Exhibit A. Second, a few weeks later, Prince William Circuit Judge Richard Potter dismissed another of Mr. Walker's suits against Defendant Brett Kimberlin, finding that it was without merit and brought for an “improper purpose.” He said the following: It’s also clear from the various pleadings and exhibits filed in this case that the parties have been involved in extensive disputes that have involved political and religious issues.These various claims including criminal and civil allegations and litigations in state and federal courts all of which appear to have been dismissed. The most recent case filed by Plaintiff [Walker] against Defendant Kimberlin and his two organizations was dismissed by order of the U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland on November 28, 2012, just six days ago. In which the Judge stated and I quote, “I deem it unwise to intervene in the bitter political disputes between the parties.” Exhibit B. And third, the Montgomery County State's Attorney Office wrote to Mr. Walker on April 25, 2012 that it was nolle prossing another of his criminal charges and would not get involved in the disputes between him and Defendant Brett Kimberlin. Exhibit C. Once Mr. Walker lost all these malicious legal actions against Defendant Brett Kimberlin, he enlisted his paralegal, Plaintiff Hoge, to file more malicious legal actions. Mr. Hoge complied by filing pleadings in multiple Maryland Courts and Counties, even after having them dismissed over and over. Plaintiff Hoge is Mr. Walker's proxy, continuing a reign of legal terror and lawfare against Defendants and their associates, He has brought this case for an improper purpose to continue his jihad against Defendants. What has changed since Judge Motz, Judge Potter and Assistant District Attorney Keith Jacobson told Mr. Walker that they would not get involved in his political disputes with Defendant Brett Kimberlin? Nothing except that Plaintiff Hoge does his bidding. This Court should follow the lead of Judge Motz, Judge Potter and Keith Jacobson, and dismiss this case and rule that it was brought for an improper purpose.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I served a copy of this on Plaintiff September 20, 2016 regular mail. Bre¥iKimberlinCase 8:12-cv-01852-JFM Document 33 Filed 11/26/12 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ys, ost "FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND pitt OF * AARON WALKER + . : Civil No, ~1PM-12882 at BRETT KIMBERLIN as MEMORANDUM ‘Aaron Walker has brought this action against Brett Kimberlin and two organizations with ‘which Kimberlin is associated. Kimberlin has filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for Role 11 sanctions against Walker's attorney. Kimberlin’s motion to dismiss will be granted but his ‘motion for Rule 11 sanctions will be denied. “The parties apparently have been involved in intense political disputes over the years. Walker complains that Kimbertin has filed meritless law suits against him. He seeks a declaration from this court that Kimberlin is vexatious litigant and requiring that he seek ‘approval from an administrative law judge before he can bring any type of action against Walker. Obviously, this court has no authority to require a court to appoint an administrative law judge to approve the filing of any suits filed by Kimberlin or any organization associated with him against Welker. Alwough Walker also seeks $150,000 in punitive damages, he makes no claim for ‘compensatory damages. Thus, the claims he asserts are not cognizable. See Scott v, Jenkins, 690 ‘A.2d 1000, 1008 (Md. 1997); Shabazz v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., 881 A.2d 1212, 1233-34 (Md. ‘App. 2005). Asto the Rule 11 motion, 1 deem it unwise to intervene in the bitter political dispures ‘between the parties. In any event, although plaintiff is cautioned thatthe institution of anyCase 8:12-cv-01852-JFM Document 33 Filed 11/28/12 Page 2 of2 similar suit in the future may result in the imposition of sanctions, I have concluded that here the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions would not be appropriate. Dae: spe Z AAT ‘J. Bhederick Motz ‘United States District Judge——— PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY AARON J. WALKER, Plaintifé, Case No. CLi2-631-00 BRETT KIMBERLIN, : Defendant. Cizcuit Courtroom 4 Prince William County Courthouse Manassas, Virginia Tuesday, December 4, 2012 The above-entitled matter came on to be heard before the HONORABLE RICHARD B. POTTER, Judge, in and for| the Circuit Court of Prince William County, in the Courthouse, Manassas, Virginia, beginning at 11:15 o'clock a.m.a APPEARANCES: On Behalf of the Plaintiff: DAN BACKER, ESQUIRE On Behalf of the Defendant: (Pro Se)10 aL 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 aa 22 23 pe EXTRACT OF PROCEEDINGS (The Court Reporter was previously sworn by the Clerk of the Court.) THE COURT: We're back on the record. The Plaintiff has brought a complaint against the Defendant Kimberlin, and two other Defendants who arel before the Court today personally. Their complaint contains thirty-two counts of which fourteen involve the Defendant Kimberlin. Counts two, four, five, eight, nine, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven, and thirty-two. The Defendant Ximberlin has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, the lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and violation of th} First Amendment. Kimberlin’s motion to dismiss will be granted That is motions for any additional sanctions will be denied. In light of the Court’s ruling on the motion12 43 14 15 16 18 19 20 ar 22 23 ee to dismiss, the other pending motions by the Court are moot and therefore dismissed as well. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against the co-defendants are also denied and the case is| dismissed. Upon consideration of the totality of the pleadings including the attached exhibits and the axgumenk of the parties and counsel it is clear to this Court that| the Plaintifé seeks two million dollars in punitive damages, but makes no claim for compensatory damages so that the Plaintifg (inaudible) is not recognizable under the law. It’s also clear from the various pleadings an involved in extensive disputes that have involved political and religious issues. These various claims including criminal and civil allegations and litigations in state and federal courts all of which appear to have been dismissed. The most recent case filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Kimb 1) and his two organizations was dismissed by order of the U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland on November 28, 2012, just six daysBEE eee a eee eee 1| ago, in which the Judge stated and I quote, “I deem it 2| unwise to intervene in the bitter political disputes 3] between the parties.” 4 This Court takes the same posit 5| clear that this case is simply a continuation of meritles| 6] and vindictive litigation between the parties. 7 While the law in Virginia is clear that 8 ailing to state a claim is an issue generally addressed 9| by demurrer, and Defendant Kimberlin has not filed a demurrer in this case. It’s also true that Virginia law provides thal 12| the signature of an attorney or a party with any pleading} 13] before this Court constitutes a certification by him that] 14] the pleading is well grounded in fact, warranted by 15 | existing law, and is not interposed for any improper 16 | purpose such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay of 17] needless increase in the cost of litigation. 18 ‘The Court finds that the complaint is not wel 19] grounded in fact, it’s not warranted by existing law, and 20| it’s imposed for an improper purpose as part of an ongoin| 21 | political dispute between the parties. 22 While the statute provides for sanctions by 23] the Court, this Court will grant the motion to dismiss by|33 14 1s 19 20 aa 22 ————————-_wea7?W Defendant Kimberlin. The Court denies the motion for any further sanctions. The Court further finds that count two is based upon a claim of defamation. Under Virginia law, th} elements on defamation are: 1) Publication, 2) Of an actual statement and, 3) Intent. In order to assert a claim of defamation however the Plaintiff must first show that the Defendant published a falee factual statement that concerns and harms the Plaintiff. But here by the Plaintiff’s own allegations including paragraph fifty-one they indicate that the statements allegedly made by the Defendant were not directed at the Plaintifi. In addition, as the Defendant has stated in his motion to dismiss and here today expressions of opinion are constitutionally protected and they’ re not actual as defamation. So as a matter of law the Court finds that the statements set forth in the complaint do not contain14 18 16 47 18 19 20 an 22 23 provable false factual statements but are relative in nature and depend upon the viewpoint of the speaker. Counts four and five are dismissed for lack o! proper jurisdiction and venue. As to count eight, it is based on allegation of intentional infliction of emotional distress, In ordek to recover on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional dictress the Plaintiff must satisfy four elements of proo 1) That the Defendant’s conduct was intentional and reckless and, 2) The Defendant's conduct was outrageous an: intolerable and, 3) There was a causal connection between the wrongdoers conduct and the resulting emotional distress, 4) The resulting emotional distress was Even taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court cannot find that the alleged statements of the Defendant Kimberlin were outrageous or could be the basis of any severe emotional distress. As to count fourteen, that count is based on the tort of interference «: business expectations and N a KR RM aed R & Pp oO R ame10 aa 12 13 4s 16 a7 18 19 20 an 22 23 «—— the elements of that tort includ 1) A business relationship or expectancy of 4 probability of future economic benefit to Plaintiff as an| objective test and, 2) Defendant's knowledge of that relationshi, or expectancy and, 3) Reasonable certainty that absent the Defendant's intentional misconduct Plaintiff would have continued in that relationship and, 4) The interference was by improper methods and, 5) Damages resulted from that improper interference. The complaint fails to state ali of the elements. It fails to state sufficient facts that were 4| any way improper methods by the Defendant. Counts fifteen and sixteen are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and venue. Count twenty-three is based on the Virginia business conspiracy. And the elements of that are: 1) An allegation of two or more persons, 2) An agreement and, 3) To willfully and maliciously interfere e oN 4 KE Biwteumis ® & PO R15 16 ay 18 ag 20 21 22 23 with another in his trade, reputation, business, or profession by any means and, 4) Malice, that is an intentional purpose an¢ without justification. The given complaint fails to state sufficient facts to support the elements of the tort and fails to state those specific facts with reckless and particularity. Count twenty-four is based on the tort of Virginia Conmon Law of Conspiracy and the elements of the tort include: 1) Two or more persons combined 2) Accomplist by some concerted action for some criminal or unlawful purpose, or an unlawful purpose by unlawful and crim 1 means. If a Plaintiff fails to allege the tort with reckless and particularity. Counts twenty-five, twenty-six, and twenty- seven are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and venue an| for the reasons set forth herein. Count thirty-two is based upon Plaintife’s request for an injunction, but an injunction requires one} irreparable harm and two, a lack of adequate remedy of16 47 18 as 20 21 22 law. In view of the fact no compensatory damages are sought, there can be no showing of irreparable harm jj the allegations set forth in the complaint or any showing| that the Plaintiff would not have an adequate remedy of jaw or a claim of merit. Therefore, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss counts two, four, five, eight, nine, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty- six, and twenty-seven, and thirty-two is granted. The motion is granted and those counts ere al dismissed with prejudice. The Court shall note the exceptions of the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the ruling of the Court. ‘The other motions are therefore rendered moot and are also dismissed. At the same time the Court will dismiss the motion for default judgment against the co- defendants upon the same grounds as set forth by the court. T will ask counsel to prepare an order which simply reflects the ruling of the Court which is that the| Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the case is dismissed.10 aL 13 a4 15 16 18 4g 20 22 23 Thank you, gentlemen. (Whereupon, at approximately 11:57 o'clock a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) RP Her ee ea eee eRe eG. cates erm nar TTState's Attorney for Montgo:nery County 50 Maryimnd Aveme Racklle, Maryland 20850 Apri 28, 2012 RE: State y, Brett Kimbertin, 1900277929 Dear Mr Walker in my coleas the Deputy Chret of the District Court Leam, | review citizen complaints alleging penuny as well as other citizen complaints thst come 1 my attention Ac you know. a Commissioner may issue a statement of charges bused upon a determination as 0 whether prohalve cause exists ice autematicaily proseeutes ail sugh satses Insiew! we forward Hlowerer, it does not fellow that thes ‘evaluate thent 9 a vane-by -case basis te determine whether it is in the unterest ef justice te ge Hy ah euaniamned maccr be third eniven cociplaint mvolving you aad Me Ketberhy any direction. the Stite dropped the charges im the other Two. Very respecttlly. stay ony belie! that Our dispute with Vie Kimbertin cannot he resolved on the criming! ustive system. T cannat helt BUC ouce thst the transenpt of the peace onder hearing whick sou hetptully provided nesiee’s the folowing stiterent trom the presidina Judge. the Honezuble Gary G Everagam “Hi secs quite anparent this Cours that hoth of you are way tee invested in gach other's af and was too invested in Irying ww de harm to one another.” [further cote trom the transcript that Judge Fvemgam apparently credited Mr. Kimberlin's testimony and, consequentis, estended the peace order against vou anti? August § Sed Please note that this Office does aot uke sides in personal disputes of any hind. im my jwdgment the evidence in the above-captioned matter is insutficien! to warrant further action and none will be when Theretire Thave directed the entry ofa nalie peusegit te the abve-captionest matter