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 BRETT KIMBERLINS MOTION IN LIMINE

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and opposes Brett Kimberlins Motion

in Limine (Docket Item 183/0). In opposition Mr. Hoge states as follows:

This case is headed for a bench trial. There will be no jury, and the Court

will be the trier of facts. Therefore, many of the points raised in Kimberlins Motion

in Limine which might make sense for a jury trial are inapplicable for a bench trial.

For example, in the process of suggesting that putting the fact of his criminal record

before the trier of fact is too prejudicial to his defense, he puts the existence of that

record before this Courtthe trier of fact.

I. TESTIMONY OF AUDREY CREIGHTON

As Kimberlin has noted, the Court will have a transcript of the de novo peace

order hearing conducted by Judge Creighton. That transcript constitutes the best

evidence of what occurred during the hearing, and Judge Creighton is not a witness

to any other relevant acts. Therefore, there should be no reason for her to testify,

but if she is called, she should be subject to the same rules of impeachment as any

other witness.
 II. BRETT KIMBERLINS CRIMINAL RECORD

One of the allegations made against Mr. Hoge by Brett Kimberlin in the 2013

Application for Statement of Charges was that Mr. Hoge had falsely described

Kimberlins criminal record. Therefore, that record should be admissible as it

relates to the truth of Mr. Hoges statements about Kimberlin.

It is true that Kimberlins convictions are all over 15 years old. However, his

conviction for perjury is still admissible for impeachment. Rule 5-609(b). Moreover,

serial bombings are infamous crimes, so the Court may consider the probative value

of Kimberlins convictions for the Speedway Bombings. Rule 5-609(a).

Therefore, Mr. Hoge should be permitted to introduce evidence related to

Kimberlins criminal convictions, particularly as they relate to the truth of Mr.

Hoges statements.

III. THE KIMBERLIN V. WALKER, ET AL. LAWSUIT

Kimberlin misrepresents the outcome of Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No.

380966V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2014). Judge Johnson found that Kimberlin had

failed to show that Mr. Hoge had made any false statements defaming Kimberlin

and granted a judgment under Rule 2-519. As the Court of Special Appeals noted

while upholding that judgment, a statement that is true isnt actionable. 1

Thus, the judgment in Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. was on the merits, and two courts

1Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Nos. 1553, 2009 Sept. Term, 2014, No. 0365 Sept. Term
2015 (Md.App. 2016) at 16.

2
have dismissed Kimberlins subsequent lawsuits against Mr. Hoge because of res

judicata resulting from Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. 2

Kimberlin states in his motion that [t]his Court has already dismissed

Plaintiffs malicious use of process claim regarding that case. Motion in Limine at

2. Mr. Hoge has never alleged malicious use of process; there is no such count in

the Complaint.

Therefore, extracts the record of the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No.

380996V (Md. Cir.Ct Mont. Co. 2014) lawsuit should be admissible.

IV. TETYANA KIMBERLINS ESTRANGEMENT FROM BRETT KIMBERLIN

Brett Kimberlin alleged in the 2013 Application for Statement of Charges

that one of the ways that Mr. Hoge harassed him was by providing assistance to

Tetyana Kimberlin while Mr. and Mrs. Kimberlin were estranged. However, the

facts of that estrangement (and any infidelity) and the contents of communications

between Tetyana Kimberlin, her boyfriend Jay Elliott, and Mr. Hoge during that

estrangement relate to the truth of statements made by Mr. Hoge and falsity of

statements made by Brett Kimberlin. Therefore, facts related to the estrangement

between Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin should be admissible.

2 The order dismissing Mr. Hoge from Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al.
(II), Case No. 403868V, Docket Item 196 (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Apr. 7, 2016) cites
res judicata as a basis for dismissal. Also Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams LLP, et
al., Case No. 15-CV-723-GJH, Order, ECF No. 134 (D.Md. Mar. 29, 2016) granting
Mr. Hoges Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim.

3
 V. Citizen K

Mark Singers book, Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett

Kimberlin, is an authorized biography of Brett Kimberlin. Its contents and Mr.

Hoges reporting about them relate to the falsity of Kimberlins allegations against

Mr. Hoge. Truthful reporting about the book is not harassment of Brett Kimberlin

because the book provides documented information about Kimberlin and his past

crimes.

Further, as Kimberlins authorized biography, the books use in evidence

should be allowed as a statement by a party-opponent because it is a statement

made by a person authorized by Kimberlin to make a statement concerning

Kimberlins personal history. Rule 5-803(a)(3).

Thus, the book should be admissible as evidence.

VI. MINOR WITNESSES

There is no factual basis to show that an order concerning minor child

witnesses is necessary.

VII. DAMAGES

Kimberlin falsely states that Mr. Hoge failed to allege any damages in his

Complaint, and the Court has previously denied the Kimberlins request for

untimely discovery concerning damages. Therefore, there is no basis for preventing

Mr. Hoge from presenting evidence related to damages.

4
 VIII. HOGE V. KIMBERLIN PEACE ORDER PETITION

Kimberlin misrepresents Judge Stansfields findings during the de novo

hearing in Hoge v. Kimberlin, Case No. 06-C-13-63590 (Md. Cir.Ct. Carr. Co. 2013).

In fact, Judge Stansfield made no findings during the hearing. He issued an order

with his decision at a later date, and he did not find that there was no connection

between Kimberlin and Breitbart Unmasked website. He simply found that a

connection to the @BreitbartUnmask Twitter account was unproven. Therefore, the

question of any connection between Brett Kimberlin and Breitbart Unmasked

remains undecided and, to the extent it is germane, evidence relating to that issue

should be admissible.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to deny Defendant Brett Kimberlins

Motion in Limine (Docket Item 183/0) and to grant such other relief as the Court

may find just and proper.

Date: 10 August, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

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

5
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 10th day of August, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing
on the following persons:

William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 220 Whitty Drive, Myrtle

Beach, South Carolina 29579 (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

Breitbart Unmasked by First Class U. S. Mail c/o William Schmalfeldt, Editor, 220
Whitty Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29579 (last known address)

Almighty Media by First Class U. S. Mail c/o Breitbart Unmasked, William

Schmalfeldt, Editor, 220 Whitty Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29579 (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: 10 August, 2017

William John Joseph Hoge