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 SUPPLEMENT TO THE MOTION TO

DISMISS
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and opposes Defendants Supplement
to the Motion to Dismiss (Docket Item 73/0). In opposition to the Kimberlins
Supplement Mr. Hoge states as follows:
DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENT CONTAINS NO NEW FACTS OR LAW BEARING ON THE
INSTANT LAWSUIT
Mr. Hoge files this Opposition in case the Court does not strike Defendants
Supplement for being filed without first seeking leave to file or for failure to bear
proper signatures or for other reason(s).
Nothing in the Defendants Supplement rebuts the facts or law presented by
Mr. Hoge in his Opposition (Docket Item 58/1) to their Motion to Dismiss (Docket
Item 58/0). Instead, the Supplement deals with complaints against Aaron Walker.
Although Aaron Walker is not a party to the instant lawsuit, the Kimberlins
continue to direct the Courts attention to him. Given that Mr. Walker is also suing
the Kimberlins for malicious prosecution based on similarly perjured Applications

for Statement of Charges 1 filed simultaneously with those filed against Mr. Hoge,
and given that Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont.
Co.) has progressed to the summary judgment stage against the Kimberlins,2 its a
bit surprising that they would do anything to link the two cases.
During discovery in the Walker case, Mr. Walker sought answers from the
Kimberlins to Standard General Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The Kimberlins
answers were, None, None, and None. See Exhibits C and D. Thus, they have
stated that they have no witnesses; no expert witnesses; and no documents,
electronically stored information, or tangible things that support a defense to Mr.
Walkers allegations of malicious prosecutionallegations essentially identical in
form and substance to those raised by Mr. Hoge in Counts I and XI of his
Complaint.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge requests the Court to DENY Defendants Brett and
Tetyana Kimberlins Motion to Dismiss (Docket Item 58) and to GRANT such other
relief as the Court may find just and proper.

For example, Exhibits A and B are true and correct copies of the Applications for
Statement of Charges filed by Tetyana Kimberlin against Messrs. Walker and Hoge
on 18 May, 2015. The typewritten portions of the addenda are identical.
2

A motions hearing that will deal with Mr. Walkers motions for summary
judgment against Brett Kimberlin and Tetyana Kimberlin is scheduled for 30
September, 2016, before Judge Mason in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
2

Date: 23 September, 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 23rd day of September, 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 known address)
Almighty Media by First Class U. S. Mail to 20079 Stone Oak Parkway, San
Antonio, Texas 78258 (last known address)
Breitbart Unmasked by First Class U. S. Mail to 20079 Stone Oak Parkway, San
Antonio, Texas 78258 (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: 23 September, 2016
William John Joseph Hoge

Exhibits A and B are not included in this posting because they

are available elsewhere online.

Exhibit C
Extract from the the discovery interrogatories addressed to Brett Kimberlin in
Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. Case No. 398855V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co.). Identically
worded interrogatories 2 through 4 were addressed to Tetyana Kimberlin.

feminine gender shall be deemed to include the masculine as necessary to bring within the scope
of a particular interrogatory any material or information which might otherwise be construed to
be outside its scope.
INTERROGATORIES
1.

Identify all persons who participated in and/or provided information for the

preparation of your answers to these Interrogatories. For each such identified person, state the
particular Interrogatory answer in which that person participated and/or for which he or she
provided information.
2.

Identify each person, other than a person intended to be called as an expert

witness at trial, having discoverable information that tends to support a position that you have
taken or intend to take in this action, including any claim for damages, and state the subject
matter of the information possessed by that person.
3.

Identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial, state

the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, state the substance of the findings
and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each
opinion, and, with respect to an expert whose findings and opinions were acquired in anticipation
of litigation or for trial, summarize the qualifications of the expert, state the terms of the expert's
compensation, and attach to your answers any available list of publications written by the expert
and any written report made by the expert concerning the expert's findings and opinions.
4.

If you intend to rely upon any documents, electronically stored information, or

tangible things to support a position that you have taken or intend to take in the action, including
any claim for damages, provide a brief description, by category and location, of all such

documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, and identify all persons having
possession, custody, or control of them.
5.

If any person carrying on an insurance business might be liable to satisfy part or

all of a judgment that might be entered in this action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments
made to satisfy the judgment, identify that person, state the applicable policy limits of any
insurance agreement under which the person might be liable, and describe any question or
challenge raised by the person relating to coverage for this action.
6.

For every fact alleged to be true in either the July 30, 2013, charges apparently

filed by Brett Kimberlin against Aaron Walker, a.k.a. State v. Walker (III), No. 0D00291914
(Md. Mont. Co. Dist. Ct. 2013) or the in the July 30, 2013, charges apparently filed by Tetyana
Kimberlin against Aaron Walker, in State v. Walker (IV), No. 5D00333030 (Md. Mont. Co. Dist.
Ct. 2015), please describe in detail all evidence allegedly showing that fact to be true. A true and
correct copy of those charges are attached as Exhibits [n] and [n].

If the evidence is

documentary, please identify the document as per the instructions above, describe what evidence
exists to authenticate it, and when you first became aware of it. If the evidence is an eyewitness
account, identify the person who witnessed the relevant action and describe in detail what they
witnessed. In answering this interrogatory, it is insufficient to present conclusory allegations as a
factsuch as that a person harassed another, stalked another, or bullied another. Instead,
it is necessary to show what evidence supports those conclusions. Therefore, any answer that
relies on such conclusory allegations will be deemed incomplete and noncompliant.
7.

For every piece of evidence outlined in the previous question, state when that

evidence came into Brett Kimberlins or Tetyana Kimberlins possession.

Exhibit D
Extract from the joint response to discovery interrogatories by Brett and Tetyana
Kimberlin in Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. Case No. 398855V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co.).