Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 57

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 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT


TETYANA KIMBERLIN AS TO COUNT XI AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and moves this Court grant summary

judgment in his favor against Tetyana Kimberlin with respect to Count XI of the

above captioned matter pursuant to Rule 2-501. Mr. Hoge believes that liability can

be determined on the papers but requests a hearing on damages. In support of his

motion Mr. Hoge states as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

While the instant lawsuit is somewhat complex, one portion is simple and

straightforward. Count XI alleges that Tetyana engaged in the tort of malicious

prosecution. The Complaint alleges that she filed a false Application for Statement

of Charges against Mr. Hoge. This is the only tortious act alleged against Mrs.

Kimberlin, and a decision on the merits with respect to her liability is possible given

the undisputed evidence and the admissions she has made. Summary judgment

against Tetyana Kimberlin on Count XI in Mr. Hoges favor is now appropriate.

Mr. Hoges Affidavit relating to Count XI is attached as Exhibit B.


II. THERE ARE NO MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE RELATED TO COUNT XI

Given the evidence in the record and developed in discovery, the facts clearly

demonstrate that Tetyana Kimberlin engaged in malicious prosecution against Mr.

Hoge. As is shown below, all of the four elements of the tort as described in the case

law1 are present:

a. Tetyana Kimberlin instituted a criminal procedure against Mr.Hoge.

b. That criminal procedure was terminated in Mr. Hoges favor.

c. There was no probable cause for the proceeding.

d. Malice was the primary purpose for bring the proceeding rather than

bringing an offender to justice.

a. Tetyana Kimberlin Instituted a Criminal Procedure Against Mr. Hoge

On or about 18 May, 2015, Tetyana Kimberlin filed an Application for

Statement of Charges. Mr. Hoge included a red-lined version of that Application as

an exhibit in his Complaint, and it is attached here as Exhibit A. In her Application

she alleged that Mr. Hoge engaged in online harassment of her daughter. Upon

review of her Application, a District Court Commissioner charged Mr. Hoge with

violation of Md. Crim. L. 3-805(b)(2). Tetyana Kimberlin has admitted filing the

Application for Statement of Charges. See, e.g., Motion to Dismiss, Docket Item

58/0, 4.

1See, e.g., Krashes v. White, 275 Md. 549, 341 A.2d 798 (1975) and Carter v.
Aramark Sports & Entmt Servs., Inc., 153 Md.App. 210, 835 A.2d 262 (2003), cert.
denied, 380 Md. 231, 844 A.2d. 427 (2004).

2
b. That Criminal Proceeding Was Terminated in Mr. Hoges Favor

The Montgomery County States Attorneys Office disposed of the charge by

entering a nolle prosequi on 24 June, 2015. Mrs. Kimberlin admits to the States

Attorneys action, but she has argued that it did not constitute a termination in Mr.

Hoges favor (Motion to Dismiss, 11). Any dispute on this point is legal not

factual, and she is wrong as a matter of law. Hines v. French, 157 Md.App, 536, 852

A.2d 1047 (2004).

c. There Was No Probable Cause for the Proceeding

Mr. Hoge denies that he has ever done any of the acts alleged in the

Application for Statement of Charge or any other act or group of acts that would

constitute a violation of Md. Crim. L. 3-805(b)(2). Further, he denies that there

could be sufficient evidence to support probable cause to charge him with a crime.

The District Commissioner who charged Mr. Hoge was deceived by the false and

misleading statements in Tetyana Kimberlins Application for Statement of

Charges.

Probable cause exists when

the facts and circumstances with the officers, and of which that
have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in
themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that
a crime is being committed.

3
Brinegar v. U.S., 338 U.S. 160, 175-6 (1949). Mrs. Kimberlins false and misleading

statements2 deprived the Commissioner of the trustworthy information necessary to

properly determine if probable cause existed to charge Mr. Hoge. There is ample

evidence in the record and in Mr. Hoges Affidavit to show that the Application was

false and misleading. A review of the lined-through Application attached as Exhibit

A shows that striking the false, irrelevant, and misleading statements from it

renders it a nullity that cannot support a finding of probable cause.

The only information before the Commissioner who charged Mr. Hoge in

May, 2015, was the false and misleading statements in Tetyana Kimberlins

Application for Statement of Charges. Mr. Hoge has denied that he has ever done

any act that was a violation of Md. Crim. L. 3-805(b)(2), and there is no evidence to

the dispute his denial. There was no probable cause to charge him.

d. Malice Was the Primary Purpose for Bring the Proceeding Rather Than
Bringing an Offender to Justice

While malice is listed as a separate element of the malicious prosecution tort,

its existence may be inferred from the lack of probable cause. Hooke v. Equitable

Credit Corp., 42 Md.App. 610, 402 A.2d 110 (1979). Tetyana Kimberlin knew that

Mr. Hoge had not engaged in the behavior she alleged, but she filed a false

Application for Statement of Charges any way. She may have been angry with

2Perhaps the most significant misleading omission in the Application for Statement
of Charges was Mrs. Kimberlins failure to disclose that a peace order petition based
on the same facts had been denied by both the District Court and the Circuit
Court. To the extent that those facts were relevant to a harassment charge, they
could not support the lower standard of proof of harassment required for a peace
order.

4
Mr.Hoge, but whatever her motivation, she was still obliged not to prosecute him

knowing that he was not guilty. Exxon v. Kelly, 281 Md. 689, 700 (1978).

III. POSSIBLE JOINT LIABILITY WITH ANOTHER DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT DELAY
RULING ON TETYANA KIMBERLINS LIABILITY

It is clear from the facts of this case that Tetyana Kimberlin engaged in

malicious prosecution, that Mr. Hoge was her victim, and that he is entitled to

summary judgment in his favor as a matter of law. Additionally, Mr. Hoge alleges

that Tetyana Kimberlin acted together with her husband Brett Kimberlin when

committing the acts alleged in Count XI. While she is only specifically involved

with the malicious prosecution of Count XI, Brett Kimberlin is specifically involved

with three other Counts (I, VI, and IX) and possibly is involved with all other counts

except Count XII. Given the ongoing difficulties in obtaining discovery from the

Kimberlins, Mr. Hoge has not yet been able to complete the investigation necessary

to prepare a motion for summary judgment against Brett Kimberlin.

But the Court does not need to wait for the dust to settle around Brett

Kimberlin in order to expeditiously deal with a motion for summary judgment

dealing with Tetyana Kimberlins liability. Apportioning damages can be deferred

until the liability of other defendants is determined.

IV. REQUEST FOR A HEARING

While Mr. Hoge believes that the Court can easily rule on the question of

Tetyana Kimberlins liability for Count XI based on the papers briefing this motion,

he believes that a hearing should be held to determine the amount and nature of

5
monetary damages after the potential liability of other defendants has been

determined.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court

i.) To grant summary judgment against Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin

with respect to liability for Count XI in Mr. Hoges favor,

ii.) To conduct a hearing to determine the amount of monetary damages to

be paid to Mr. Hoge by Tetyana Kimberlin either jointly or severally with other

defendants,

iii.) To enjoin Tetyana Kimberlin from directly filing any Application for

Statement of Charges against Mr. Hoge with a District Court Commission but to

require her to make any further complaints concerning Mr. Hoge through a police

department or sheriffs office, and

iv.) To grant such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.

Date: 17 April, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se


20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
(410) 596-2854
himself@wjjhoge.com

6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 17th day of April, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing
on the following persons:

William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 422 3rd Avenue North, Clinton,
Iowa 52732

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

Breitbart Unmasked by First Class U. S. Mail c/o William Schmalfeldt, Editor, 422
3rd Avenue North, Clinton, Iowa 52732

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: 17 April, 2017


William John Joseph Hoge

7
Exhibit A
18 May, 2015, Application for Statement of Charges filed by Tetyana
Kimberlin with false and/or misleading statements struck through in red. The
minor childs name has been redacted to protect her privacy.
Exhibit B
Affidavit of William John Joseph Hoge
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.

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE

I, William John Joseph Hoge, depose and say:

1. I am over eighteen (18) years of age, have personal knowledge of the

facts contained herein (except as noted), and am competent to be a witness.

2. Based on Tetyana Kimberlins admission, on or about 18 May, 2015,

she filed a false Application for Statement of Charges1 alleging that I used an

interactive computer to harass, abuse, bully, [sic] our minor daughter [redacted]2

which caused her to suffer serious emotional distress and fear for her personal

safety. A District Court Commissioner was apparently deceived by her false and

misleading statements and issued a charging document against me for violation of

Md. Crim. L. 8-305(b)(2). Because I have never engaged in any act or group of

acts that would violate that statuteeither on my own or acting together with

anyone elsethere was insufficient evidence to support probable cause to charge

1 A copy of the Application for Statement of Charges is a part of Exhibit A attached


to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
2The minor childs name is redacted in this Affidavit to protect her privacy. She is
referred to herein as [redacted]. On information and belief, the child will become
18 years old on 24 April, 2017.
me. Mrs. Kimberlin made the following false and/or misleading statements in the

Application:

a. For the past several years, William Hoge [has]

bullied her relentlessly through interactive computer services, directly

and indirectly. I have never bullied Tetyana Kimberlins elder daughter, directly

or indirectly, online or in the real world.

b. She and we have repeatedly asked [him] to stop but [he]

continue[s] to do so and get others to join them in [his] bullying. First, the

Kimberlins as a family and Mrs. Kimberlins elder daughter in particular made no

such request of me prior to the filing a peace order petition on 6 March, 2015.

Second, I have not continued to engage in bullying because I have never engaged in

it in the first place. Third, I have on numerous occasions asked others to leave Mrs.

Kimberlins elder daughter alone, stating that she should not be tied to Brett

Kimberlins past or present acts.

c. This has caused her serious emotional distress I have

done nothing for the purpose of causing distress to Tetyana Kimberlins elder

daughter and have done nothing to her that would cause any reasonable person to

be distressed.

d. Many parents will not let their daughters be around

[redacted] because of the false attacks made online by Mr. Hoge[.] I have

not made any false attacks against Mrs. Kimberlins elder daughter or any other

member of the Kimberlin household. Here is the daughters testimony concerning

2
why other childrens parents were careful with their children around Brett

Kimberlin:

A Well, long story short, there was, I was friends with this
girl named [child 1] and [child 2] Hinkley (phonetic sp.), and
[child2] Hinkleys parents were talking with [child 2] because a
bunch of people came over to [child 2]'s house and told them about
my dad's criminal record because of online stuff.
[child 2]s parents researched my father heavily and
found every single thing about him, found all the Twitter things,
called all my friends parents and told them --
MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: -- not to come over --
MR. OSTRONIC: Hearsay.
THE WITNESS: -- and make sure I couldn't have
friends over because they saw that my dad was --
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: -- a pedophile on these websites, and
saw this guys, they made this pedo bear of my dad, and so people
were not allowed at my house. Some people are friends of mine are
still not allowed at my house because they think my dad is a
pedophile, or they think that they're going to get raped by my dad,
or that I'm getting raped by my dad, because these people -- thats
one of the things Im trying to do.

Kimberlin v. Hoge, Case No. 9148D, Trial Transcript (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 14 May,

2015) at 54, 55. Transcript extract attached as Exhibit 1. F. Patrick Ostronic, Esq.,

was my pro bono counsel for the peace order trial. That is the entirety of her

allegation that I am somehow responsible for the other parents reasonable caution

and that their caution was a bad thing. Brett Kimberlin is a convicted felon, and he

has a history of unseemly relationships with underage girls. He cannot deny his

criminal record. See, e.g., Kimberlin v. White, 7 F.3d 526, 528-29 (6th. Cir. 1993)

and Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F Supp.2d, 487, 489-490 (D.Md. 1998). Nor can he

deny that Tetyana Kimberlin has testified in open court (Exhibit 2) that he seduced

3
her when she was 14 years old and he was over 40, a fact that can underpin a

reasonable opinion that Brett Kimberlin is a pedophile. Further, Kimberlins

relationship with a middle-school-aged girl is detailed in his authorized

autobiography. 3 Its true that I have written about Kimberlins past and present

activities, but Tetyana Kimberlins elder daughters testimony makes no actual

connection between anything I wrote or said and the alleged action taken by the

bunch of people who supposedly contacted the Hinckley family. They may have

learned everything they found about Brett Kimberlin from other sources

information about him is widely available on the Internet, and he has his own

Wikipedia articlebut anything they found in my writings was true.

e. Mr. Hoge [has] been harassing and stalking our family

obsessively and incessantly for the past four years. I have never engaged in

stalking or harassment of any member of the Kimberlin household.

f. [He has] written literally thousands of posts and tweets

about us just to harass us. I have never written any post on my blog or sent any

tweets from my Twitter accounts for the purpose of harassment.

g. They investigate every aspect of our family and

business, and they have compiled and stored gigabytes of data in scores of

digital and paper folders about our family. They conduct forensic analysis

of photos and videos associated with us through meta data [sic] markings

3Singer, Mark, Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin,
Knopf, New York, 1996.

4
to find patterns and connections. They have sent people to our home to

take photographs. We have had to call 911 several times because of

unwanted contacts[.] The They in this misleading portion of the Application

deals with acts supposedly undertaken by me in concert with Aaron Walker. Mr.

Walker is a lawyer, and I work pro bono with him as a paralegal on First

Amendment cases. While it is true that I have amassed a great deal of information

about Brett Kimberlin and, tangentially, his family, the contexts of journalism and

litigation defense were left out of Tetyana Kimberlins statements. The fact of a

(then) three-year-long continuing coverage on my blog Hogewash! of Brett

Kimberlins anti-First-Amendment activities and the fact that I was then

simultaneously defending four lawsuits filed by Brett Kimberlin4 provide

reasonable explanations for why I had collected information about him. Mr. Walker

is also a blogger who has written about Brett Kimberlin, and Kimberlin has also

sued him multiple times. Thus, Mr. Walker has had reasonable grounds to collect

information about Kimberlin as well. Furthermore, Mrs. Kimberlins statement is

misleading with respect to the rest of the Kimberlin household. I have sought and

retained relatively little information with respect to either Tetyana Kimberlin or

her elder daughter. Any such information was related either to assistance rendered

4 Kimberlin lost all four suits. Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V (Md.
Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Aug. 12, 2014), affirmed Nos, 1553, 2009 Sept., 2014 and No. 365
Sept., 2015, Md.Ap. Feb. 2, 2016, cert. denied; Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club,
et al. (I), Case No. 13-CV-3059 (D.Md. Mar. 17, 2015); Kimberlin v. National
Bloggers Club, et al. (II), Case No. 403868 (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Mar. 7, 2016); and
Kimberlin v. Hunton & William LLP, et al., Case No. 15-CV-723 (D.Md. Mar. 29,
2016). None of the last three suits survived motions to dismiss.

5
to Mrs. Kimberlin while she was estranged from her husband and was seeking

custody of her daughters,5 or related to Brett Kimberlins involving his wife or her

elder daughter in his lawsuits, or related to the peace order and criminal charges

filed in the daughters name. It is reasonable to assume that knowledge of those

facts would have tempered the Commissioners decision to charge. With the

exception of legal counsel representing me or in the context of arranging for counsel

for Mrs. Kimberlin, I have never asked any third party to contact the Kimberlins, so

any unlawful contacts they may have received have nothing to do with me. In one

instance a process server working for my counsel attempted to serve a subpoena on

Kimberlin at his place of work. The process server was threatened and called the

Montgomery County Police for assistance in serving the subpoena. That altercation

between Kimberlin and the police officers was photographed. Exhibit 3.

h. Mr. Hoge [has] exhibited a disturbing level of interest in

[redacted] since she was 14 with a multi year course of harassing and

stalking behavior. Except to the extent that she has been caught up in Brett

Kimberlins use of the courts to attempt to silence me, I have had no interest in

Tetyana Kimberlins elder daughter. As noted above, I have never engaged in

harassment or stalking of her. When Brett Kimberlin filed the peace order petition

against me on 6 March, 2015, he alleged stalking as a ground for the order.

5 When Mrs. Kimberlin was unable to afford legal counsel to defend herself from
actions filed by her husband in 2013, I organized an online fund raiser to collect
donations to pay for her lawyer. When Mrs. Kimberlin asked that the fund raising
be terminated and that all the funds collected be returned to the donors, I paid her
lawyers fees.

6
Because he couldnt present sufficient evidence to meet the low threshold of

reasonable probability, stalking was denied as a basis for the temporary peace

order.

i. [He has] attacked her repeatedly, directly and

indirectly, through [his] online presence by falsely accusing Brett

Kimberlin of sex offenses and insinuating that [redacted] is in danger. I

have never attacked Tetyana Kimberlins elder daughter either online or in the

physical world. I have never knowingly made a false accusation concerning sex

offenses concerning Brett Kimberlin. He has sued me several times for defamation

and/or false light, alleging, among other things, that I have falsely accused him of

sex offenses. He has lost every lawsuits he has filed against me. The first ended in

a directed verdict in my favor because Kimberlin did not produce one scintilla of

evidence (Judge Eric Johnsons words) to support his claims. The other suits were

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and/or res

judicata.

j. [He has] said that [he] can save her. I have never said

that I could save Tetyana Kimberlins elder daughter from any peril.

k. [He has] trolled her social media accounts and copied

pages, photos, videos and posts that she has placed on line. I have never

trolled Tetyana Kimberlins elder daughters social media accounts. I did copy

information that she posted online for use as evidence to defend myself against the

6 March, 2015, peace order petition.

7
l. This has frightened her I have never taken any action

directed toward Tetyana Kimberlins elder daughter that would cause fear in a

reasonable person.

m. [He has] tried to friend and follow her on Twitter and

Facebook. I have never tried to friend Tetyana Kimberlins elder daughter on

Facebook, and I have never tried to follow her on Twitter.

n. Mr. Hoge [has] orchestrated campaigns to post vile

and insulting comments of sexual nature on articles about her and on

music videos she has uploaded to YouTube. [He has] incited other twisted

individuals to pile on against he in perverted and unwanted ways. [He

has] posted comments on blog posts talking about her titties and falsely

insinuated sexual abuse. I have never orchestrated a campaign to post

comments of any sort on articles about Tetyana Kimberlins elder daughter or about

music videos she has posted on YouTube. On the contrary, I have asked people to

leave her alone. I have never commented in any public forum, online or real world,

about her appearance or any part of her body. I have never insinuated that she has

ever been subjected to sexual abuse.

o. On March, 3, 2015, Mr. Hoge posted her birthday and age

in the comment section of a blog post by one of his close associates

discussing a fantasy of a sexual pervert hunger[ing] over her at a middle

school basketball game. The comment I made to the blog post in question gives

Tetyana Kimberlins elder daughters birth month only and notes that she would be

8
16 on her next birthday following my comment. The obvious purpose of my

comment was to correct an error made by another commenter and to discourage

further comments about her. On information and belief, the blog post itself was

written by the anonymous blogger known as Paul Z. Krendler who is not a close

associate of mine.

p. [He] contacted the police and falsely told them that

there is child porn at our home and that she is being watched while

undressing. I have never contacted the police about any child pornography in the

Kimberlin household. I have never told the police that Tetyana Kimberlins

daughter was being watched while she undresses.

q. [He has] said that she is a proper target for online

harassment because of corruption of blood. I have never written or said

that any person should be targeted for any form of harassment because of

corruption of blood.

r. [He has] communicated with Tetyana Kimberlin and

offered her money to make false statements to get [redacted] taken away

from us. I have never offered Tetyana Kimberlin money to make a false

statement. I did pay for Mrs. Kimberlins legal counsel who represented her in a

custody battle with her husband while they were estranged. In early July, 2013, I

attended a session of the District Court in Montgomery County during which Mrs.

Kimberlin sought a protective order against her husband. The hearing ended with

her in handcuffs because Brett Kimberlin had filed a petition for an involuntary

9
mental examination. I wrote a blog post about what I saw in court that day. The

next day, Jay Elliot, Mrs. Kimberlins boyfriend (she was estranged from her

husband at that time), contacted me to tell me that she had been quickly released.

Mr. Elliot and I arranged to meet the following day, and Tetyana Kimberlin came to

that meeting a few minutes ahead of him, so I actually met her first. After she

described her situation, I offered to assist her in obtaining legal counsel to seek

custody of her children. Mrs. Kimberlin and I met several times during the months

of July and August, 2013, while I was taking care of various matters to support he

legal battle with her husband. I have never taken any action that would cause her

children to be taken from her; the assistance I gave her was intended to help her

win custody of her children.

s. [He has] undermined [redacted]s budding music career

by forcing us to take measures to protect her from their creepy, scary

behavior. I have never publicly commented on Tetyana Kimberlin elder

daughters talent as a musician or her musical career. I have never taken an action

related to her career or intended to affect it. I have never engaged in any behavior

directed toward her that a reasonable person would consider creepy or scary.

Indeed, I have ignored her to the greatest extent possible.

t. [He has] attacked people who support [redacted],

including reporters. I have never attacked anyone because of his or her support

for Tetyana Kimberlins elder daughter.

10
u. [He has] threatened to take depositions of her and her

friends to ask about sexual topics. I have never threatened to depose Tetyana

Kimberlins elder daughter or any of her friends.

v. After the hearing, the Judge stated that Mr. Hoge

[was] engaged in child abuse through [his] online bullying. She said that

they may well end up behind bars. Judge Creighton made no such statement

during the 14 May, 2015, trial about me. She was speaking about someone else.

w. Mr. Hoge, the ringleader[] of this bullying campaign.

No child should have to endure the onslaught of bullying and abuse [this]

adult[] [has] masterminded and direct [sic]. I am not the ringleader of any

campaign of bullying directed to any person. I have never been the ringleader of

any such campaign. I have not served as a mastermind directing anyone in a

campaign of bullying.

x. The harassment via computer has occurred through

various blogs, including www.hogewash.com, Twitter via Mr. Hoges

personal Twitter account www.Twitter.com/wjjhoge[.] I have never

engaged in harassment using blogs or Twitter.

y. It has also occurred on Mr. Hoges alter ego blog, The

Thinking Mans Zombie, which posted the blogs about hungering over

[redacted], and making her fair game, and saying that she is sexually

abused. As I have previously testified under oath, I am not Paul Krendler and

have no control over the blog known as The Thinking Mans Zombie. Exhibit 4. On

11
information and belief, no articles have ever been published at The Thinking Mans

Zombie alleging that Tetyana Kimberlins elder daughter has been subjected to

sexual abuse.

z. Mr. Hoge has attempted to friend her on Facebook. I

have never attempted to friend Tetyana Kimberlins elder daughter on Facebook,

and she admitted that I did not try to friend her in her testimony during the 14

May, 2015, de novo peace order trial. She testified that another person had tried to

friend herbut that I did not. Exhibit 5.

aa. He has sent emails to Tetyana Kimberlin saying he

wants to save [redacted]. I did not send any such email to Tetyana Kimberlin.

ab. We know Mr. Hoge only from his attacking us online. He

first started attacking Brett Kimberlin, then harassing Tetyana Kimberlin

and then [redacted]. Mr Hoge writes daily posts on his blog targeting our

family. This statement is clearly false with respect to the relationship between

Tetyana Kimberlin and me. I met her when she was estranged from her husband

and made arrangements for her to have legal advice and counsel during a custody

dispute with her husband. Assistance in obtaining legal counsel is hardly a form of

attack. As for Brett Kimberlin, my blogging about him stems from my interest in

First Amendment issues and my opposition to his attempts to use the courts to

illegally silence his critics. My coverage began when he secured an unconstitutional

12
gag order6 as a part of peace order against Aaron Walker, a lawyer who had

provided pro bono advice to a blogger Kimberlin had sued for defamation. I

continued covering Kimberlins activities after reporting on that peace order case

and have since become one of his targets. The daily posts on my blog about Brett

Kimberlin and his activities or about his associates and their activities do not target

his family. In fact, they are only mentioned to the extent that he has dragged them

into his legal wrangling.

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: 17 April, 2017 __________________________________


William John Joseph Hoge
20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
(410) 596-2854
himself@wjjhoge.com

6Kimberlin claimed that it was harassment for anyone to write truthfully about his
past and present activities even if that writing did not come close to incitement as
defined in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). In the process of issuing the
gag order against Mr. Walker, the District Court judge hearing the case specifically
refused to be bound by Brandenburg, and ordered that Mr. Walker, who is also a
blogger, could not speak or write about Kimberlin for six months. The order was
quickly overturned by the Circuit Court, and the District Court judge was
subsequently disciplined.

13
Exhibit 1
Kimberlin v. Hoge, Case No. 9148D, Extract of Testimony of Tetyana
Kimberlins Elder Daughter (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. May 14, 2015) at 54, 55. The
first names of minor children have been redacted.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------X
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, :
:
Appellant/Plaintiff,:
:
v. : Case No. 9148D
:
WILLIAM HOGE III, :
:
Appellee/Defendant. :
:
------------------------------X

TRIAL DE NOVO

Rockville, Maryland May 14, 2015

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, :
:
Appellant/Plaintiff,:
:
v. : Case No. 9148D
:
WILLIAM HOGE III, :
:
Appellee/Defendant. :
:
------------------------------X

Rockville, Maryland

May 14, 2015

WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled

matter commenced

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE AUDREY A. CREIGHTON, JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

BRETT KIMBERLIN, Pro se

FOR THE APPELLEE/DEFENDANT:

F. PATRICK OSTRONIC, Esq.


932 Hungerford Drive
Suite 28A
Rockville, Maryland 20850
I N D E X

Page

WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

For the Appellant/Plaintiff:

Tetyana Kimberlin 31 41 42 43
(Judge) (Judge)

Kelsey Kimberlin 45 59 68/70/91 69


(Judge) (Judge)

For the Appellee/Defendant:

William Hoge III 79 85 87 --


(Judge)

EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED

For the Appellant/Plaintiff:

Exhibit No. 1 38 39
Exhibit No. 2 47 --
Exhibit No. 3 52 --
Exhibit No. 4 74 --

For the Appellee/Defendant:

Exhibit No. 1 83 84

Closing Arguments:

F. Patrick Ostronic, Esq. 88


For the Defendant

Judge's Ruling 93
54

1 Q And what are they?

2 A Well, they're Tweets from Hoge about me --

3 Q Where, how did you --

4 A -- and my dad.

5 Q How did you come into possession of those Tweets?

6 A Well, long story short, there was, I was friends with

7 this girl named Cecile Child 2 Hinkley (phonetic sp.), and


Child 1 and Marley

8 Marley Child 2 because a


Child 2 Hinkley's parents were talking with Marley

9 bunch of people came over to Marley's house and told them about

10 my dad's criminal record because of online stuff.

11 Marley's
Child 2 parents researched my father heavily and

12 found every single thing about him, found all the Twitter

13 things, called all my friends' parents and told them --

14 MR. OSTRONIC: Objection, Your Honor.

15 THE WITNESS: -- not to come over --

16 MR. OSTRONIC: Hearsay.

17 THE WITNESS: -- and make sure I couldn't have

18 friends over because they saw that my dad was --

19 THE COURT: Overruled.

20 THE WITNESS: -- a pedophile on these websites, and

21 saw this guy's, they made this pedo bear of my dad, and so

22 people were not allowed at my house. Some people are friends

23 of mine are still not allowed at my house because they think my

24 dad is a pedophile, or they think that they're going to get

25 raped by my dad, or that I'm getting raped by my dad, because


55

1 these people -- that's one of the things I'm trying to do.

2 I'm just trying to get them to stop writing about me,

3 so my name's not associated with any of this online, to make

4 sure they're not going to be talking about me, or going and

5 attacking my articles.

6 Like I have, I have YouTube on YouTube. I got

7 Tweeted by Taylor Swift, and then it got written in the Gazette

8 about me. And they wrote on the article about me, and said

9 that I was the daughter of a terrorist and a rapist, and that

10 they should not be listening to her music and stuff. And

11 that's the main thing.

12 All I am trying to do --

13 MR. OSTRONIC: Your Honor, I object. She keeps

14 saying "they," and there's only one person here, and it has to

15 be specifically with him, if even if it's all applicable. This

16 is --

17 THE WITNESS: Well, okay. Then let's say Hoge.

18 THE COURT: Right.

19 THE WITNESS: But he also --

20 MR. OSTRONIC: I'm trying to tread lightly here, Your

21 Honor --

22 THE COURT: Sustained.

23 MR. OSTRONIC: -- but I have a client to worry about,

24 and --

25 THE COURT: All right. Sustained.


100
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:

Case No. 9148D

BRETT KIMBERLIN

v.

WILLIAM HOGE III

By:

_________________________
KIMBERLY L. CHWIRUT
Transcriber
Exhibit 2
Walker v. Kimberlin, et al, Case No. 398855V, Extract of Testimony of
Tetyana Kimberlin (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. May 14, 2015) at 200 - 203.
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 --
200

1 A I don't recall.

2 Q You don't recall. Let's change topics. You first

3 met your husband in the summer of 1995, correct?

4 A I object to that. I'm not talking about my ages, and

5 my sexual relationship with my husband.

6 Q Oh, but --

7 THE COURT: Okay. Well, you have to answer the

8 question that he asked about when you met your husband.

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, I met my husband.

10 BY MR. WALKER:

11 Q In the --

12 A In 1995, yes.

13 Q In the summer?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Okay. You were 14 at the time, right?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And you had, you first had sex with him before you

18 turned 15, right?

19 MR. KIMBERLIN: Objection.

20 THE COURT: Come up.

21 (Bench conference follows:)

22 MR. WALKER: I think nothing could be more relevant.

23 MR. KIMBERLIN: Your Honor, this not relevant.

24 THE COURT: No, but yet, you did engage in sex with

25 her at your age, and she was only 14 --


201

1 THE WITNESS: Your Honor --

2 THE COURT: Wait. Let me just finish with him first.

3 And she was only 14 at the time. Arguably, that would have

4 been a sex offense.

5 MR. KIMBERLIN: It's --

6 THE COURT: It would be under the statute.

7 MR. KIMBERLIN: Well, no, the statute's --

8 THE WITNESS: I want to say something.

9 THE COURT: Wait. Well, let me just finish with him

10 first, then I'll give you a chance to be heard.

11 MR. KIMBERLIN: For, for --

12 THE COURT: Let me --

13 MR. KIMBERLIN: We object. And, and --

14 THE COURT: But is there any other reason you object?

15 MR. KIMBERLIN: It's irrelevant and it's highly

16 prejudicial on --

17 THE COURT: If you engaged in sex with her at age 14,

18 you think that would be irrelevant to whether or not he could

19 legitimately refer to you as a pedophile? You think that's

20 irrelevant?

21 MR. KIMBERLIN: Yes, I do.

22 THE COURT: Okay.

23 MR. KIMBERLIN: Pedophiles normally --

24 THE COURT: Well, stay up here, Ms. --

25 Go ahead.
202

1 MR. KIMBERLIN: I'm sorry. Pedophiles normally go

2 after children.

3 THE COURT: Well, how, well then, she's 14. The

4 question's at the time she was 14. That's the way the question

5 was asked.

6 Okay. What is your objection?

7 THE WITNESS: My objection is that it was

8 (unintelligible) in my country. In my country, things like

9 that (unintelligible) age restrictions (unintelligible).

10 THE COURT: Yes.

11 THE WITNESS: It wasn't here.

12 THE COURT: Yes. Okay. But you can certainly

13 explain that. I'll permit you to explain that. But in the

14 context of this litigation, there, his --

15 THE WITNESS: And my mother was --

16 THE COURT: One of your complaints, well, one of your

17 complaints is that he has harassed your family by referring to

18 him as a pedophile; that if, in fact, there's evidence that he

19 engaged with, in sex with you at age 14, that some people might

20 consider that as evidence that he's a pedophile without regard

21 to the laws of your country, because of the laws of our

22 country.

23 MR. KIMBERLIN: Let me talk to my wife.

24 MR. WALKER: No.

25 THE COURT: Pardon me?


203

1 THE WITNESS: Well, since --

2 MR. KIMBERLIN: I want to talk to my wife.

3 MR. WALKER: No.

4 THE COURT: No, sir. You can't talk to her now.

5 MR. KIMBERLIN: All right.

6 THE COURT: Have a seat.

7 (Bench conference concluded.)

8 BY MR. WALKER:

9 Q So the question was, you first had sex with your

10 husband before you turned 15, correct?

11 A Yes.

12 Q Okay. And for the record --

13 THE COURT: She's answered the question.

14 MR. WALKER: Well, it's a different question.

15 THE COURT: She isn't -- okay.

16 MR. WALKER: I'm moving to their cross.

17 BY MR. WALKER:

18 Q For the record, what is your birthdate?

19 A November 16, 1980.

20 Q Okay. And you came to Maryland about two months

21 before your 16th birthday in 1996, correct?

22 A Yeah, I believe so.

23 Q Okay. And you continued that sexual relationship

24 with your husband in Maryland when you were 15?

25 A No.
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 3
Photograph taken by the process server attempting to serve a subpoena on
Brett Kimberlin at 6513 79th Pl., Cabin John, Maryland 20818 in 2013.
Exhibit 4
Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V, Extract of Testimony of
William Hoge (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Oct. 12, 2016) at 206.
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
206

1 the request of, or the behest of, or when he's acting for Mr.

2 Walker, I'll certainly permit those questions, but you have to

3 establish that link.

4 (Bench conference concluded.)

5 BY MR. KIMBERLIN:

6 Q So, Mr. Hoge, are you telling the jury today that you

7 are not a sock puppet, that you are not Paul Krendler?

8 A I'm not Paul Krendler.

9 Q Okay.

10 THE COURT: Give those to the clerk, please, they're

11 marked exhibits.

12 MR. KIMBERLIN: Oh, yes.

13 BY MR. KIMBERLIN:

14 Q I'm going to hand you Exhibits, I'm going to hand you

15 exhibits, first of all, 37, and ask if you can identify that.

16 A Yes, I can.

17 Q Can you tell the jury what that is?

18 MR. WALKER: I didn't --

19 THE WITNESS: This is a post for the --

20 THE COURT: 37. Is there an objection to 37?

21 MR. WALKER: I object to talk about the contents

22 until and unless, I mean I believe he's saying he wrote this,

23 and if it's something he wrote again, we have the same problem

24 of what's the link to this case.

25 THE COURT: Okay. So, I'm not going to receive it


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 5
Kimberlin v. Hoge, Case No. 9148D, Extract of Testimony of Tetyana
Kimberlins Elder Daughter (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. May 14, 2015) at 71, 72.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------X
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, :
:
Appellant/Plaintiff,:
:
v. : Case No. 9148D
:
WILLIAM HOGE III, :
:
Appellee/Defendant. :
:
------------------------------X

TRIAL DE NOVO

Rockville, Maryland May 14, 2015

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, :
:
Appellant/Plaintiff,:
:
v. : Case No. 9148D
:
WILLIAM HOGE III, :
:
Appellee/Defendant. :
:
------------------------------X

Rockville, Maryland

May 14, 2015

WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled

matter commenced

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE AUDREY A. CREIGHTON, JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

BRETT KIMBERLIN, Pro se

FOR THE APPELLEE/DEFENDANT:

F. PATRICK OSTRONIC, Esq.


932 Hungerford Drive
Suite 28A
Rockville, Maryland 20850
I N D E X

Page

WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

For the Appellant/Plaintiff:

Tetyana Kimberlin 31 41 42 43
(Judge) (Judge)

Kelsey Kimberlin 45 59 68/70/91 69


(Judge) (Judge)

For the Appellee/Defendant:

William Hoge III 79 85 87 --


(Judge)

EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED

For the Appellant/Plaintiff:

Exhibit No. 1 38 39
Exhibit No. 2 47 --
Exhibit No. 3 52 --
Exhibit No. 4 74 --

For the Appellee/Defendant:

Exhibit No. 1 83 84

Closing Arguments:

F. Patrick Ostronic, Esq. 88


For the Defendant

Judge's Ruling 93
71

1 somebody waiting outside our house in this car once, and that I

2 remember that a long time ago, we had to go to court because

3 there were e-mails being exchanged by a bunch of people because

4 this person said they were going to come down and kill my dad

5 with a gun and my family.

6 MR. HOGE: (Unintelligible) the case.

7 THE WITNESS: And --

8 MR. OSTRONIC: Your Honor, there's no testimony

9 there, and Mr. Hoge never showed up then. I don't -- and I

10 will say, I'll proffer that he never (unintelligible) the

11 house.

12 THE WITNESS: So I don't know --

13 THE COURT: All right. Well, there's testimony to

14 that effect now.

15 THE WITNESS: -- if it was personally him, but I know

16 that there are people who talk --

17 THE COURT: Overruled.

18 THE WITNESS: -- to him and talk about my dad online.

19 And there have been people who, that have showed up to my

20 house, because our address has been (unintelligible). And

21 that's, that's --

22 BY THE COURT:

23 Q All right. Now, you testified that you blocked him

24 from your Twitter account, right?

25 A From -- to be honest, I am pretty sure -- from, from


72

1 now on, I think I have gotten my facts mixed up, because if, I

2 should have had the thing, and I think I got Walker and Hoge

3 mixed up -- but I'm pretty sure, in the past, I have gotten a

4 thing on Facebook, because if I -- oh, my God --

5 Q A thing?

6 A I wish I still had --

7 Q A request to friend?

8 A -- this evidence.

9 Q Or what kind of thing? You have to be really

10 specific with me because I don't know much about Facebook.

11 A I think a lot -- this is, this is like probably

12 fourth grade -- I don't, when I had a Facebook for the very

13 first time -- I remember receiving a message, and I -- I really

14 think it was from him, but I'm not sure -- and I'm so sorry, so

15 I don't know.

16 Q Okay. Did you get anything this year?

17 A Not this year. I have blocked every single thing on

18 Facebook that I could, and then I've blocked my social medias.

19 But I remember in fourth grade, I did get a message on

20 Facebook, saying, "Hey, you know your dad's a terrorist, he

21 bombed up a bunch of places, you should be careful, young one,"

22 or something like that. And I was only in fourth grade. You

23 don't know about it.

24 Q What grade are you in now?

25 A I'm in tenth. I'm going to (unintelligible)


100
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:

Case No. 9148D

BRETT KIMBERLIN

v.

WILLIAM HOGE III

By:

_________________________
KIMBERLY L. CHWIRUT
Transcriber