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 REPLY TO TETYANA KIMBERLINS OPPOSITION TO HIS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION TO THE KIMBERLIN DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and relies Tetyana Kimberlins

Opposition to His Motion for Summary Judgment and opposes the Kimberlin

Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. Mr. Hoge states as follows:

I. A PRELIMINARY MATTER

There are several problems with Docket Item 144/0 as it was served on Mr.

Hoge. First, while it is styled as being from both Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin, only

Mrs. Kimberlin signed the paper. Exhibit A. Tetyana Kimberlin is not a lawyer

licensed to practice in Maryland. Therefore, she cannot represent her husband in

this matter. Second, even if Brett Kimberlin had signed the paper, he does not have

standing to argue against a motion for summary judgment against another party,

and he may not represent another party because he is not a lawyer licensed to

practice in Maryland. Third, Brett Kimberlins Affidavit is unsigned and

inadmissible, and even if it were properly signed, any evidence he wishes to bring in

via the Motion is improper because the Affidavit is not made upon personal
knowledge of an affiant shown to be competent to testify to the matters stated.

Exhibit B. Fourth, any evidence Tetyana Kimberlin wishes to bring in via her

Motion is improper because it is not supported by an affidavit made upon personal

knowledge of an affiant shown to be competent to testify to the matters stated.

Because of these issues, the Court should probably strike, disregard, or

summarily deny all of Docket Item 144/0 except that portion dealing with Mrs.

Kimberlins defense of Count XI and also should strike all of the Motions attached

exhibits.

Mr. Hoges Second Affidavit Relating to Count XI is attached as Exhibit D.

Mr. Hoges Affidavit Relating to Counts I, VI, and IX is attached as Exhibit

E.

II. TETYANA KIMBERLIN HAS FAILED SHOW ANY GENUINE DISPUTE REGARDING
ANY MATERIAL FACT RELATED TO COUNT XI

Rule 2-501(b) requires that

[a] response to a motion for summary judgment shall be in writing

and shall (1) identify with particularity each material fact as to
which it is contended that there is a genuine dispute and (2) as to
each such fact, identify and attach the relevant portion of the
specific document, discovery response, transcript of testimony (by
page and line), or other statement under oath that demonstrates
the dispute.

Tetyana Kimberlin has failed to meet either of these requirements. She has not

identified a single genuinely disputed fact, and she has not attached any

documents, transcripts, or the like which are identified as supporting the existence

of any specific disputed material fact.

2
 She has apparently given up on disputing the facts establishing that she filed

the 18 May, 2015, Application for Statement of Charges or that the resulting

charges were disposed of by the Montgomery County States Attorneys Office

entering a nolle prosequi. She seems to hang her defense upon an argument that

the allegations in her Application established probable cause to charge Mr. Hoge

with a crime, i.e., violating Md. Crim. L. 3-805(b)(2). That is not a dispute over

the contents of her Application. It is a dispute over a matter of law, i.e., whether

her statements as found in that Application created reasonable grounds for belief

that Mr. Hoge had committed a crime. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371

(2003).

Of course, a determination of probable cause must be based on trustworthy

information sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief

that an offense has been committed. Pringle, n. 2, citing Brinegar v. U.S., 338 U.S.

160, 175-176 (1949). False and misleading statements cannot be trustworthy

information, and Mrs. Kimberlins false and misleading statements in her

Application could not properly establish probable cause. Putting sufficient facts

before a Commissioner is not the only requirement for probable cause. Those facts

must also be true.

Tetyana Kimberlin states in her Affidavit that her Application was true and

that the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al, Case No. 398855V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2016)

jury found her statements contained therein to be true. As can be seen in her

Exhibit C3 (at 1, 2), the Walker jury made no such finding. Given that the

3
document she provides with her Opposition shows that, once again, she is not

telling the truth, Tetyana Kimberlin cannot reasonably aver that the findings of

Walker jury are material to this case. Therefore, any dispute over this point is

immaterial and does not affect Mr. Hoges entitlement to summary judgment.

Tetyana Kimberlin admits in paragraph 32 of her Opposition that her

Application states that Mr. Hoge published information on the Internet which

caused Kelsie Kimberlin to be bullied, but the Application does not allege with any

specificity what Mr. Hoge said or wrote or when or where he said or wrote it 1and

nothing in the Application establishes any causal nexus between any alleged act by

Mr. Hoge and any alleged harassment of Miss Kimberlin. Tetyana Kimberlin failed

to provide any documents to support her statement because none exists. Tetyana

Kimberlin cannot reasonably aver that she identified any specific act allegedly done

by Mr. Hoge which caused any alleged bullying of her daughter or to show how such

alleged bullying was caused by any such alleged act. Therefore, there is no genuine

dispute as to the facts relating to this point.

Tetyana Kimberlin makes statements in her Opposition ( 32, 33, and 37)

as to facts taken into consideration by the District Court Commission in the

decision to charge Mr. Hoge. However, no relevant evidence is in the record, and

she is not competent to testify to such matters. Therefore, there is no genuine

1 In addition to naming who, a proper allegation must specify what, when, where,
and how. E.g., Colonel Mustard murdered the victim last night in the
Conservatory with the wrench. Simply saying, Colonel Mustard is a meanie, is
insufficient.

4
dispute as to the facts relating to this point.

Tetyana Kimberlin states in paragraph 34 of the Opposition that Mr. Hoge

has exhibited a disturbing level of interest in her daughter, but she does not

specify how that interest might have been demonstrated, and she presents no

evidence showing such interest by Mr. Hoge or that such interest was expressed on

the Internetas would be necessary to run afoul of 3-805(b)(2). She is not

competent to testify to Mr. Hoges state of mind, and she has presented no extrinsic

evidence suggesting what his state of mind might have been. Tetyana Kimberlin

cannot reasonably aver that she has shown that Mr. Hoge has expressed any

interest in her daughter, either on the Internet or in the real world. Therefore,

there is no genuine dispute as to the facts relating to this point.

Tetyana Kimberlin states in her Application and restates in paragraph 34 of

her Opposition that Mr. Hoge told her that he wanted to save here daughter. Mr.

Hoge denies every having made such a statement, but even if he had, it would be

immaterial. Even if Mrs. Kimberlin were telling the truth, the statement was not

allegedly made on the Internet ( Plaintiff told her in person , Opposition,

34.) so it could not have been an act which would violate3-805(b)(2). Tetyana

Kimberlin cannot reasonably aver that any such alleged statement by Mr. Hoge is

material. Therefore, any dispute over this point is immaterial and does not affect

Mr. Hoges entitlement to summary judgment.

Tetyana Kimberlin states in paragraph 34 of her Opposition that Mr. Hoge

was the recipient of an email from a third party making an accusation concerning

5
Brett Kimberlin. As the Court can see from Tetyana Kimberlins Exhibit J, the

email does not say what she says it says. Even if it did, Mr. Hoges receipt of an

email from a third party almost two years before her Application was filed is

immaterial, and Tetyana Kimberlin cannot reasonably aver that it is material.

Therefore, any dispute over this point is immaterial and does not affect Mr. Hoges

entitlement to summary judgment.

Tetyana Kimberlin states in paragraph 35 of her Opposition that Mr. Hoge

harassed Kelsie Kimberlin by monitoring her social media accounts. First, this is

contradicted by Miss Kimberlins testimony during the 14 May, 2015, peace order

hearing.2 Second, it is a nonsensical allegation. Miss Kimberlin was attempting to

hold herself out as public figure by promoting her music career. Why would she be

posting publicity videos and the like on the Internet if she were afraid that someone

might see them? Tetyana Kimberlin goes on in paragraph 35 with a long list of

conclusory allegations, all of which are denied by Mr. Hoge and none of which is

supported by a scintilla of evidence. Again, Tetyana Kimberlin fails to provide any

documents to support her statements because none exists. Tetyana Kimberlin

cannot reasonably aver that she established any connection between Mr. Hoges

alleged remarks and any alleged harassment of her daughter. Therefore, there is

no genuine dispute as to the facts relating to this point.

2See Mr. Hoges Affidavit Relating to Count XI attached to his Motion for Summary
Judgment, Docket Item 136/0, d, z.

6
 In paragraph 36 of Tetyana Kimberlins Opposition she offers her apparent

misunderstanding of Judge Creightons remarks during the 14 May, 2015, peace

order hearing as an excuse for having filed the Application for Statement of

Charges. First, the judge didnt say what Mrs. Kimberlin says she said. Second, it

would have been improper for the judge to have offered legal advice from the

bench,3 and she did not do so. Tetyana Kimberlin fails to identify where in the

transcript Judge Creightons alleged remarks can be found because, as can be seen

in her Exhibit identified as D4, they arent there. Tetyana Kimberlin cannot

reasonably aver that she received any legal advice from Judge Creighton.

Therefore, there is no genuine dispute as to the facts relating to this point.4

Tetyana Kimberlin misrepresents Mr. Hoges argument concerning the

standard of proof she must meet in rebutting his Motion for Summary Judgment.

She did not need to completely defeat all of Mr. Hoges Complaint. All she needed to

do was show that there is a genuine dispute over one material fact related to Mr.

Hoges Complaint. As can be seen supra, she has failed to meet that minuscule

burden. She has done nothing to show that she truthfully put a single fact before

the Commissioner establishing probable cause that Mr. Hoge had violated any of

the elements of 3-805(b)(2). Therefore, Tetyana Kimberlin cannot reasonably aver

that there was sufficient truthful evidence to establish probable cause to charge Mr.

Hoge with violating Md. Crim. L. 3-805(b)(2), so there cannot be any genuine

3 See Rule 18-103.10 and Cts. & Jud. P. 1-203.

4 Also, this affirmative defense was not raised in their Answer.

7
dispute of material facts concerning the lack of probable cause to charge Mr. Hoge

with that crime.

As for the fourth element of the tort of malicious prosecution, malice, the

Maryland case law5 cited by Mr. Hoge in his Motion for Summary Judgement is

clear. The existence of malice may be inferred for the lack of probable cause. This

is a matter of law once the lack of probable cause is shown.

Tetyana Kimberlin inappropriately raises several issues of law in her

Opposition that have nothing to do with disputed facts. For example, she again

raises the bogus issue of res judicata based on the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al.

lawsuit which did not include Mr. Hoge as a party. She also raises litigation

privilege as a defense, recycling an argument presented in the Kimberlins Motion

to Dismiss. The Court has already ruled against the Kimberlins on these defenses,

and such arguments have no proper place in a Motion for Summary Judgment in

any case.

III. TETYANA KIMBERLIN IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MR.HOGE IS

Mr. Hoge showed in his Motion for Summary Judgment that there is no

genuine dispute over any material fact related to Count XI of this lawsuit. On the

other hand, Tetyana Kimberlin has failed to meet her burden to show a genuine

dispute over just one material fact related to that count. The undisputed material

facts show that Tetyana Kimberlin instituted a criminal procedure against Mr.

5 Hooke v. Equitable Credit Corp., 42 Md.App. 610, 402 A.2d 110 (1979).

8
Hoge which was terminated in his favor and for which there was no probable cause

and that she acted with malice. Therefore, Mr. Hoge is entitled to judgment against

Tetyana Kimberlin as to Count XI as a matter of law.

IV. EVEN IF IT WERE PROPERLY FILED, BRETT KIMBERLINS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FAILS TO SHOW THERE ARE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO COUNT I

Brett Kimberlins 30 July, 2013, Application for Statement of Charges makes

the following false allegations against Mr. Hoge:

a.) William Hoge has been stalking me for at least 12 months.

b.) [H]e has offered my mentally ill wife things of value to sign false

documents prepared by him and his associate Aaron Walker.

c.) He is co-publisher of a blog called KimberlinUnmasked

d.) He is publisher of another blog called HogeWash that publishes daily

false attacks on me.

e.) William Hoge in July 2013, has bee stalking and harassing me by

meeting with, advising and preparing court documents for my wife Tetyana that are

false.

f.) 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 through her

using a course of conduct and pattern of criminal activity.

g.) I have repeatedly told Mr. Hoge to leave my family and me alone

h.) He is obsessed with attacking me using the most vile and untrue

statements and accusations.

9
 i.) On July 12, 2013, he helped prepare a false custody complaint against

me

j.) On July 27, 2013, he helped prepare a false protective order against

me

k.) Mr. Hoges conduct is exacerbating my wifes mental illness and pushing

her toward actions that could result in death or serious injury to my wife.

l.) He is manipulating her in a negative way that could cause her to attempt

or commit suicide, or to strike out and harm my children or me.

m.) Mr. Hoge has been using the Internet, blogs, Twitter, and other

electronic means to stalk and harass me.

n.) He is doing this to harm me and my reputation, and destroy my business

and ability to earn a living.

Mr. Hoge denies that he every did any of the illegal acts alleged by Brett

Kimberlin in his 30 July, 2013, Application for Statement of Charges, and there is

no evidence to the contrary. Certainly, Kimberlin has not presented anything to

this Court other than his unsworn statements. Kimberlin falsely states in his

Unsigned Affidavit attached to Docket Item 144/0 that Mr. Hoge admitted that he

engaged in unwanted harassing conduct toward my wife, my minor daughter and

me. Unsigned Affidavit, 4. He attaches no supporting transcript of that

imaginary testimony. Kimberlin has nothing to attach because Mr. Hoge never said

any such thing. Brett Kimberlin cannot reasonably aver that Mr. Hoge ever gave

10
such testimony. Therefore, there is no genuine dispute as to the facts relating to

this point.

In paragraph 8 of his Unsigned Affidavit, Kimberlin makes a number of

conclusory allegations, not one of which is supported by admissible evidence or

testimony and many of which have already been found to be false by other courts.

For example, he sued Mr. Hoge for falsely calling him a pedophile, and Mr. Hoge

won that case on the basis of truth.6 His claims that writing negative things about

him amounts to harassment have been the basis of numerous of his failed civil

actions, and his is estopped from continuing to make them. More to the point, he

has never shown any writing by Mr. Hoge that was defamatory, incited violence, or

made a true threat. His notion that it was harassment for Mr. Hoge to have

attended open court hearings and to have truthfully reported on what happened

during those hearing is simply wrong as a matter of law. There is no evidence to

support his allegation that Mr. Hoge manipulated Tetyana Kimberlin during a

mental health crisis. Indeed, there is no evidence in the record or offered by Brett

Kimberlin that Tetyana Kimberlin has ever suffered from any mental disorder. His

allegation that Mr. Hoge has cyberstalked Kelsie Kimberlin has been debunked in

Mr. Hoge Motion for Summary Judgment against Tetyana Kimberlin (Docket Item

136/0) and in Section II supra. He has produced no evidence that Mr. Hoge has

financed any campaign against him by Aaron Walker or that such a campaign

exists or ever existed. Mr. Hoge denies doing any of these acts, and there is no

6 Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2014).

11
evidence to the contrary. Brett Kimberlin cannot reasonably aver that Mr. Hoge

ever did any of these things. Therefore, there is no genuine dispute as to these facts

as they might be material to this case.

In paragraph 13 of his Unsigned Affidavit Kimberlin alleges that Mr. Hoge

presented fabricated evidence to the Carroll County States Attorney and Sheriff.

Mr. Hoge denies ever having presented fabricated evidence to any law enforcement

agency or to any court, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Brett Kimberlin

cannot truthfully aver he has never altered evidence, and he cannot reasonably aver

that Mr. Hoge ever proffered fabricated evidence.7 Therefore, there is no genuine

dispute as to the facts that might be material to this case.

Kimberlin has already admitted to filing the Application (Unsigned Affidavit,

2.) and to the disposition of the charge against Mr. Hoge (Motion to Dismiss,

11.). By the same analysis relating to Tetyanas liability for Count XI supra, if the

2013 Application were full of false in misleading statements to that that there was

insufficient trustworthy information for the District Court Commissioner to

examine, there was no probable cause to charge Mr. Hoge. Also, the same analysis

regarding malice supra for Count XI also applies to Count I.

Brett Kimberlin and Mr.Hoge have a genuine dispute over the material facts

referenced in a.) through n.) supra. Therefore, there are material facts to be tried

relating to Count I and summary judgment is not proper.

7In fact, the Kimberlins submitted an altered version of one of Mr. Hoges blog
posts as an exhibit to their Motion for Sanctions, Docket Item 137/0, Ex. A. See also
Mr. Hoges Opposition, Docket Item 137/1 at 8-10.

12
 V. EVEN IF IT WERE PROPERLY FILED, BRETT KIMBERLINS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FAILS TO SHOW ANY GENUINELY DISPUTED MATERIAL
FACTS RELATING TO COUNT VI, AND THE FACTS DO NO SUPPORT SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN BRETT KIMBERLINS FAVOR

Mr. Hoge agrees with Brett Kimberlin that there are no material facts in

dispute relating to Count VI, but facts do not support summary judgment in

Kimberlins favor.

Kimberlin admits that he sent the email which was a statement to a third

party. (Unsigned Affidavit., 10.) He has made no effort to deny its contents.

Rather, he asserts that it was not defamatory and that Mr. Hoge was not damaged

by it.

Of the four elements of defamation81.) a comment published to a third

party, 2.) containing a false statement, 3.) for which the person making the

statement was at fault, and 4.) which caused damage to the defamed partynone

depend on any disputed fact. All disputed points turn on a matter of law, i.e., was

Kimberlins statement in the email purposely false and misleading in context so as to create

a false understanding in the recipient that Mr. Hoge was subject of a final peace order

based on stalking.

Yet again, Kimberlin raises the specious litigation privilege defense that the Court

has already rejected, and he has offered not new facts or cited no new law which should

cause the Court to change the law of the case.

8 Offen v. Brenner, 402 Md. 191, 935 A.2d 719 (2007).

13
 While summary judgment as to Count VI may be appropriate, the facts do

not support judgment in Kimberlins favor, and Mr. Hoge agrees that the Court

should conduct a hearing on summary judgment as to Count VI.

VI. EVEN IF IT WERE PROPERLY FILED, BRETT KIMBERLINS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FAILS TO SHOW THERE ARE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO COUNT IX

Based on paragraph 18 of Kimberlins Motion, he appears to be trying to

defend himself by mischaracterizing Mr. Hoges complaint. For example, he states

that Plaintiff has not alleged in is Complaint that anything Defendant said to

Twitter was false. Docket Item 144/0, 18. That is flatly contrary to what is

actually alleged in the Complaint: The suspension was the result of one or more

false complaints by Brett Kimberlin alleging that Mr. Hoge had engaged in

cyberstalking and harassment of K. Kimberlin. Complaint, 60. Kimberlin

appears to be questioning the existence of the defamatory email Mr. Hoge briefly

examined when it was proffered by Kelsie Kimberlin during the Kimberlin v. Hoge,

Case No. 9148D (Md.Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2015) peace order hearing on 14 May, 2015

or at least denying that the contents of the email were defamatory. Since Kimberlin

would not produce the email during discovery, there remain material facts to be

tried by the Court regarding that email, including its existence and the nature of its

contents.

Kimberlin offers the patently silly defense in paragraph 19 that some of his

defamatory statements about Mr. Hoge were made by filing them via an online

automated form. He seems to want the Court to believe that there is no liability for

14
making a false statement about someone via such an automated system when that

statement causes the systems corporate owner to take adverse action against the

person falsely reported on. Also, the fact that Mr. Hoge received an apology from

Twitter for suspending his @wjjhoge account based on Kimberlins complaint(s)

(Complaint, 60) shows Kimberlin communications made it past the automated

system to at least one human being.

Brett Kimberlin and Mr. Hoge have a genuine dispute of material facts with

regard to Count IX. Therefore, summary judgment is not appropriate as to that

count.

VII. BRETT KIMBERLIN MALICIOUSLY ACTED TOGETHER WITH TETYANA

KIMBERLIN TO FILE THE APPLICATION FOR STATEMENT OF CHARGES
REFERENCED IN COUNT XI

All of the argument supra related to Tetyana Kimberlins liability as to Count

XI applies to Brett Kimberlin because he has admitted that he is the actual author

of the Application for Statement of Charges. They are jointly liable as co-

conspirators.

There is additional evidence that Brett Kimberlins action was not motivated

by a desire to bring Mr. Hoge to justice for the alleged cyberstalking of Kelsie

Kimberlin. Rather, there is evidence Kimberlin acted out of a desire for vengeance

for his losses to Mr. Hoge in Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V (Md.

Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2014), Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al., Case No. 13-

CV-3059-GJH (D.Md. 2015), and Kimberlin v. Hoge, Case No. 9148D (Md. Cir.Ct.

Mont, Co. 2015).

15
 Kimberlin was interviewed by David Weigel, a reporter for the online news

website The Daily Beast a few minutes after losing to Mr. Hoge as a result of a

directed verdict in the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. lawsuit. The following is from Mr.

Weigels report, quoting Kimberlin:

And tomorrow, I can file another lawsuit against them. And now I
know what I need to do. Its going to be endless lawsuits for the
rest of their lives. And thats what it ends up being. I sue them.
They sue me. They come into court. I sue them. They come into
court. Thats the way it is.

Weigel, David, The Weirdest Story About a Conservative Obsession, a Convicted

Bomber, and Taylor Swift You Ever Read, The Daily Beast, http://

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/30/the-weirdest-story-about-a-

conservative-obsession-a-convicted-bomber-and-taylor-swift-you-have-ever-read.

The full article is attached as Exhibit C. Kimberlin has thus far made good on his

promise of lawsuits for the rest of their lives for his perceived enemies. In

addition to the Kimberlin v. Walker, National Bloggers Club (I), and peace order

case cited, Kimberlin has also filed and lost two more lawsuits against Mr. Hoge

since losing Kimberlin v. Walker: Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams LLP, et al., Case

No. 15-CV-723-GJH (D.Md. 2016), affmd Case No. 16-1500 (4th Cir. 2016) and

Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (II), Case No. 403868V (Md. Cir.Ct.

Mont. Co. 2016). He has subsequently filed Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams LLP,

et al. (II), Case No. 420664V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2016) which was dismissed for

failure to state a claim and Kimberlin v. Breitbart Holdings, et al., Case No. 16-

16
CV-3855-GJH (D.Md. 2016) for which the U.S. District Court has declined to issue

summonses since it was filed in October, 2016.9

Mr. Hoge won most of the counts in Kimberlin v. Walker on summary

judgment, and he won the remaining two on a judgment under Rule 2-519.

National Bloggers Club (I) was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted. The Kimberlin v. Hoge peace order petition failed in both

the District and Circuit Courts. Hunton & Williams was dismissed for failure to

state a claim. National Bloggers Club (II) was dismissed with respect to Mr. Hoge

on the ground of res judicata. The false criminal charge resulting from the May,

2015, Application for Statement of Charges fits right into Kimberlins improper and

malicious campaign attempting to use the courts to silence Mr. Hoge and into

Kimberlins refusal to take No as an answer from the courts.

Kimberlin drafted the false Application for Statement of Charges filed on 18

May, 2015, against Mr. Hoge and got Tetyana Kimberlin to file it10 for the malicious

purpose of punishing Mr. Hoge for reporting truthfully about Brett Kimberlin and

his past and present activities. Thus, Brett Kimberlin acted with malice.

Brett Kimberlin inappropriately raises the same irrelevant issues of law as

Mrs. Kimberlin does. As noted supra, the Court has already ruled against the

9 While Mr. Hoge is not a party to these last two lawsuits, many of the defendants
in both have been sued as Mr. Hoges co-defendants by Kimberlin before.
10The Kimberlins simultaneously filed a pair of virtually identical Applications for
Statement of Charges against both Aaron Walker and Mr. Hoge in 2015. Kimberlin
admitted writing the Applications during the Walker trial See Exhibit F.

17
Kimberlins on these matters, and such arguments have no proper place in a Motion

for Summary Judgment in any case.

Mr. Hoge showed in his Motion for Summary Judgment that there is no

genuine dispute over any material fact related to Count XI of this lawsuit. On the

other hand, Brett Kimberlin has failed to meet his burden to show a genuine

dispute over just one material fact related to that count. Therefore, Mr. Hoge is

entitled to judgment against Brett Kimberlin as to Count XI as a matter of law.

VIII. A LARGE PORTION OF DOCKET ITEM 144/0 IS IMMATERIAL TO THE INSTANT

LAWSUIT

Beginning with the subheading Plaintiff and Aaron Walkers Conduct

Must Be Considered As One And The Same on page 19, the remainder of

Docket Item 144/0 mostly deals with the Kimberlins legal wrangling with Aaron

Walker and Brett Kimberlins attempts to silence Mr. Walker for truthful reporting

concerning Brett Kimberlins past and present activities. It contains odd page

references and out-of-sequence paragraph numbering, suggesting that it may have

been recycled via cut-and-paste from a paper filed in another lawsuit. It is it not

generally germane to this case.

To the extent that section makes allegations concerning Mr. Hoge, those

allegations mostly have been debunked elsewhere, and most of what Kimberlin

raises in pages 19-26 is immaterial. The following (which might have been material

if true) are false and/or misleading:

18
 o.) Walker and Hoge were asked by Brett Kimberlin to leave Kimberlin

alone but he [sic] did not ; Docket Item 144/0 at 20.

p.) Plaintiff was the ringleader and catalyst of the Everybody Blog About

Brett Kimberlin Day campaign ; Id. at 21.

q.) Plaintiff showed up uninvited to a family law hearing involving

Defendant Tetyanas mental health, and exploited that hearing to exposed

Defendants in a negative manner ; Id. at 21.

r.) Plaintiff contacted Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin after that hearing and

then took advantage of her mental health crisis by trumping up criminal

complaints, motions and talking points falsely alleging that Defendant Brett

Kimberlin committed criminal sexual acts ; Id. at 21.

s.) Plaintiff was told by Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin, after she renounced

the documents typed by Walker, that the information was not true, to remove it

from the Internet, but he would not ; Id. at 22.

t.) Plaintiff used a computer device to make posts about Defendants

daughter on the Internet ; Id. at 22.

u.) Walker and Plaintiff tweeted that they wanted to take discovery and

depositions from that daughter and her friends to ask them about sex ; Id. at 22.

v.) Plaintiff wanted and tried repeatedly to have Defendant Brett Kimberlin

arrested ; Id. at 23.

w.) Plaintiff repeatedly posted tweets and blog articles falsely portraying

Defendant Brett Kimberlin as a pedophile ; Id. at 23.

19
 x.) Walker and Plaintiff tweeted that Defendants daughter should not have

friends over for sleepovers because Defendant Brett Kimberlin posed a threat to

their safety ; Id. at 23.

y.) Walker wanted to break up Defendants family and have Defendant

Brett Kimberlin imprisoned ; Id. at 23.

z.) Plaintiff admitted that one of his associates wrote a blog post about

hungering over Defendants daughter at a middle school basketball game ; Id. at

23.

aa.) Plaintiff contacted law enforcement and at least one Congressman to

put heat on Defendant Brett Kimberlin ; Id. at 23.

ab.) Plaintiff offered Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin free legal services, and

he and his friends offered to and did raise money for her, which she refused ; Id.

at 23.

None of the exhibits attached to the Kimberlins motion support Brett

Kimberlins defense in this lawsuit.

The Exhibit identified as C3 is the Judgment from the Walker v. Kimberlin,

et al. suit. It does not state that the jury in that case found any statement in the

Kimberlins Application for Statement of Charges filed against Mr. Walker was

true. However, it does state that jury found that some of the Kimberlins

statements were knowingly false:

(1) alleging that Walker had falsely accused Kimberlin of

committing the crimes of perjury and rape and (2) falsely accusing
Walker of sending Kimberlin to the hospital by virtue of an assault

20
 Walker had earlier committed on Kimberlin. The jury further
found that the Defendants failed to disclose material information in
their Application for Statement of Charges. Specifically, Mr.
Walker represented Tetyana Kimberlin as a lawyer on a pro bono
basis and a legal fund was established with her consent.

Kimberlin Exhibit C3 at 1, 2. Kimberlins own exhibit contradicts several of the

assertions Kimberlin makes in his Motion, e.g., ab.) supra.

The Exhibit identified as E5 is a deposition from the Walker v. Kimberlin, et

al. suit with no bearing on this case. It is immaterial.

Of the Exhibits identified by the letters A through X, only Exhibits J and

R contain writings by Mr. Hoge, and only Exhibits B, N, and U contain writings

addressed to him. All the rest have nothing to do with Mr. Hoge. They are

immaterial on their face, and Kimberlin has failed to show how they bear on any

material fact at issue in this lawsuit.

As noted supra (at 5, 6), the email from Aaron Walker cited in Kimberlin

Exhibit J was not written by Mr. Hoge, so it is immaterial.

The blog post shown in Kimberlin Exhibit R appears to be an edited version

of the post as it found on the Internet,11 altered to obscure the context within which

Mr. Hoge made his comment correcting another commenters error. This comment

formed the sham basis for the Kimberlin v. Hoge peace order petition and was found

by both District and Circuit Courts not to be harassment.

Kimberlin Exhibits B and N appear to show tweets by Aaron Walker (whose

Twitter account is @AaronWorthing) addressed to Mr. Hoge (whose Twitter account

11 http://thinkingmanszombie.com/2015/03/your-moment-of-zombie-zen/.

21
is @wjjhoge). They do not contain any statements by Mr. Hoge. Thus, they are

immaterial.

Of the two emails shown in Kimberlin Exhibit U, only one appears to be

addressed to Mr. Hoge. Neither is from him. Since neither of the emails shown

contain any statement by Mr. Hoge, they are immaterial.

Thus, the bulk of the Kimberlin Exhibits are immaterial and the few that are

probative actually support Mr. Hoges case.

CONCLUSION

Tetyana Kimberlin and Brett Kimberlin have failed to meet their burdens to

show a genuine dispute over a single material fact or that the facts and the law

support summary judgment in their favors as to Count XI. Similarly, Brett

Kimberlin has similarly failed with respect to Count VI. On the other hand, Mr.

Hoge has shown that there are genuinely disputed material facts related to Counts

I and IX.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to deny the Kimberlin Defendants

Motion for Summary Judgment, and

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 and any other Defendant(s) as to Count

XI,

22
 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: 12 May, 2017 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 12th day of May, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing on
the following persons:

William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 226 Whitty Drive, Myrtle

Beach, South Carolina 29579

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,

226Whitty Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29579

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

Schmalfeldt, Editor, 226Whitty Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29579

William John Joseph Hoge

23
 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: 12 May, 2017

William John Joseph Hoge

24
 Exhibit A
Signature page from Docket Item 144/0 as served on Mr. Hoge.
 Exhibit B
Brett Kimberlins Affidavit from Docket Item 144/0 as served on Mr. Hoge.
 Exhibit C
Weigel, David, The Weirdest Story About a Conservative Obsession, a
Convicted Bomber, and Taylor Swift You Ever Read, The Daily Beast, http://
www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/30/the-weirdest-story-about-a-
conservative-obsession-a-convicted-bomber-and-taylor-swift-you-have-ever-read.
 Exhibit D
Mr. Hoges Second Affidavit Relating to Count XI.
 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.

SECOND AFFIDAVIT RELATING TO COUNT XI

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. In paragraph 37 of her Opposition to my Motion for Summary

Judgment (Docket Item 144/0), Tetyana Kimberlin states [t]he Commissioner was

told in the statement of charges about the Peace Order hearing and Judge

Creightons statements That is an example of the misleading character of the

Application for Statement of Charges. First, the denial of the peace order petition

was not reported to the Commissioner. That denial was significant because is

showed that the Kimberlins could not establish any harassment had occurredeven

to the lower standard required for a peace order. Second, Judge Creightons

remarks were falsely reported as applying to me. See Docket Time 144/0, Kimberlin

Exhibit D4.

3. In the paragraph 5 on page 20 of his Motion for Summary Judgment

(Docket Item 144/0), Brett Kimberlin falsely states Plaintiff admitted that he and
Walker engaged in much of the conduct alleged in the criminal complaint. I deny

every making such an admission, and there is no evidence that I ever did. Further,

I deny that I ever engaged in any of the illegal acts alleged in the 18 May, 2015,

Application for Statement of Charges, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

4. Brett Kimberlin makes additional false and/or misleading statements

in the bullet points under the paragraph 5 beginning on page 20 of his Motion for

Summary Judgment. Most do not bear on any material fact related to Count XI.

The following statements from paragraph 5 concerning Count XI are false and/or

misleading:

a.) Walker and Hoge were asked by Brett Kimberlin to leave Kimberlin

alone but he [sic] did not. There is no evidence of Brett Kimberlin asking me to

leave him or his family alone dated before 6 March, 2015, the date he filed the

Kimberlin v. Hoge peace order petition.

b.) Plaintiff used a computer device to make posts about Defendants

daughter not the Internet. Until the Peace Order petition was filed on 6 March,

2015, I had never published a blog post about Kelsie Kimberlin. She had been

mentioned in passing (but not by name) in posts about other people or events, but

she had never been the subject of a post on Hogewash! before that date. Kimberlin

has not produced any evidence to the contrary because there is none.

c.) Walker and Plaintiff tweeted that they wanted to take discovery and

depositions from that daughter and her friends to ask them about sex. I deny

every making such as statement on Twitter or anywhere else, and there is no

2
evidence to the contrary. Indeed, Kimberlins Exhibit B in his Motion for Summary

Judgment is not a tweet written by me. It was written to me.

d.) Plaintiff repeatedly posted tweets and blog article falsely portraying

Defendant Brett Kimberlin as a pedophile and used the PedoBear graphic in those

posts, and coined the name, [sic] DreadPedoKimberlin. Brett Kimberlin sued me

for defamation in August, 2013, alleging among other things that I had falsely

called him a pedophile. He lost that lawsuit on a directed verdict on the basis of

truth. Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2014).

Kimberlin is now estopped from bringing this allegation, but he refuses to take No

as an answer from the courts. He keeps bringing this allegation up over and over

again. I deny that I ever defamed Brett Kimberlin,1 and there is no evidence to the

contrary.

e.) Walker and Plaintiff tweeted that Defendants daughters should not

have friends over for sleepovers because Defendant Brett Kimberlin posed a threat

to their safety. I have never made such a statement on Twitter on in any public

forum, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

f.) Plaintiff admitted that one of his associates wrote a blog post about

1In the Twitchy Defendants/ motion to dismiss in Kimberlin v. National Bloggers

Club, et al. (II), Case No, 403868V, Docket Item 44 (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont Co. July 28,
2015), the point was raised that Brett Kimberlins reputation is so bad as a result of
his criminal history that he is now defamation proof. Judge Mason adopted that
as one of the bases for dismissing the suit against those defendants because
Kimberlin had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. NBC (II),
Docket Item 78, Sep. 3, 2015. Judge Mason restated that ground as a reason for
dismissal of the suit against Aaron Walker as well. NBC (II), Docket Item 154, Jan.
14, 2016.

3
hungering over Defendants daughter at a middle school basketball game This

appears to relate to the blog post shown in altered form in Kimberlins Exhibit R.

On information and belief, that post was written by the anonymous blogger known

as Paul Krendler. While I once bought a copyright from Krendler in order to keep

a work off the market and the copyright for that work is jointly registered to

Krendler and me, we are not associates in any other way, and there is no evidence

to the contrary.

g.) and Plaintiff posted a comment on that post listing the daughters

birth age and the month she was born. This is not the allegation found in the

Application for Statement of Charges which falsely alleges that I posted her

birthday ands age.

5. All of the allegation I made in Count XI of my Complaint are true.

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: 11 May, 2017 __________________________________

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

4
 Exhibit E
Mr. Hoges Affidavit Relating to Counts I, VI, and IX.
 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 RELATING TO COUNTS I, VI, AND IX

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. The Application for Statement of Charges Brett Kimberlin filed on

30July, 2013, against me is riddled with statements that are false and/or

misleading. Exhibit 1. A District Court Commissioner was apparently deceived by

Kimberlins false and misleading statements and issued a charging document

against me for violation of Md. Crim. L. 8-303. 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 me. Kimberlin made the following false and/or misleading

statements in the Application referenced in Count I:

a.) William Hoge has been stalking me for at least 12 months. I

deny that I have every engaged in stalking anyone, and there is no evidence to the

contrary.
 b.) [H]e has offered my mentally ill wife things of value to sign false

documents prepared by him and his associate Aaron Walker. I have never

offered anyone anything of value in order to induce him or her to sign a false

document, and there is no evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence that Mrs.

Kimberlin has ever suffered from a mental disorder. On information and belief,

Brett Kimberlin filed a petition for an involuntary evaluation of his wife in July,

2013, and the petition was denied.

c.) He is co-publisher of a blog called KimberlinUnmasked Brett

Kimberlin was suing the anonymous blogger Kimberlin Unmasked for copyright

infringement1 at time he filed the Application for Statement of Charges against me,

and the Kimberlin Unmasked copyright suit had no connection to me. At the end of

August, 2013, Kimberlin filed the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V

(Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2014), naming Kimberlin Unmasked and me as separate

defendants. He settled both suit with two individuals who he claimed were

Kimberlin Umasked, and I was not a part of either settlement. Clearly, Kimberlin

knew that I was not associated with the Kimberlin Unmasked blog, and there is no

evidence that I was.

d.) He is publisher of another blog called HogeWash that publishes

daily false attacks on me. Kimberlin did not provide any specific examples of

any false attack I had made on him via Hogewash! during the 30 days prior to his

filing the Application for Statement of Charges, so he provided nothing to support a

1 Kimberlin v. KimberlinUnmasked, Case No. 13-CV-2580-RWT (D.Md. 2014).

2
finding of probable cause for harassment. I deny ever making a false attack on

Brett Kimberlin, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

e.) William Hoge in July 2013, has been stalking and harassing me

by meeting with, advising and preparing court documents for my wife

Tetyana that are false. First, I am not a lawyer, and I have never prepared a

legal document for any person other than myself, and there is no evidence to the

contrary. Second, in my capacity as a paralegal working for Aaron Walker I have

prepared legal documents under Mr. Walkers supervision. Mr. Walker is licensed

to practice in Virginia and D.C. Third, if I helped prepare any documents

ultimately used by Mrs. Kimberlin, that work would have been under Mr. Walkers

supervision, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Brett Kimberlin has stated

that it is harassment for a lawyer to represent an adverse party against him.

Essentially, he wishes to criminalize the normal practice of law when it involves

providing representation to one of his perceived enemies.

f.) 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 through her using a course of conduct and pattern of criminal

activity. As noted supra, there is no evidence that Tetyana Kimberlin has ever

suffered from any mental disorder. Although I am not a qualified mental health

professional, I can state that Tetyana Kimberlin never acted in any way that caused

me to suspect that she might be mentally ill during the time I helped her in the

summer of 2013. As noted in my previous Affidavit (Docket Item 136/0, Ex. B, g.),

3
I provided assistance to Tetyana Kimberlin in finding legal counsel for her custody

fight with husband during July and August of 2013. I deny that I manipulated

Tetyana Kimberlin in any way or tried to use her to stalk or harass Brett

Kimberlin, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

g.) I have repeatedly told Mr. Hoge to leave my family and me alone

Although Brett Kimberlin made this statement in 2013, there is no evidence

that he made such a request of me before 2015.

h.) He is obsessed with attacking me using the most vile and untrue

statements and accusations. I deny every making an untrue statement

concerning Brett Kimberlin, and there is no evidence to the contrary. However,

some truthful things that I have said about him might be considered vile in that

they accurately describe Kimberlins despicable behavior, e.g., his twice suing

reporter Mandy Nagy after she had been incapacitated by a massive stroke and

could not defend herselfand then keeping her in the case as an appellee after

losing one of those suits.

i.) On July 12, 2013, he helped prepare a false custody complaint

against me I deny that I prepared or helped prepare any court paper on

12July, 2013, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

j.) On July 27, 2013, he helped prepare a false protective order

against me If I helped prepared a legal document for anyone on or about 27

July, 2013, it would have been in my capacity as a paralegal working under the

supervision of Aaron Walker, and there is no evidence to the contrary. If that

4
document contained false information, it would have been provided by Mr. Walkers

client, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

k.) Mr. Hoges conduct is exacerbating my wifes mental illness and

pushing her toward actions that could result in death or serious injury to

my wife. Again, there is no evidence that Mrs. Kimberlin has ever suffered from

mental illness. Further, I deny ever doing any thing during the summer of 2013

that would have been detrimental to her interests, health, or safety, and there is no

evidence to the contrary.

l.) He is manipulating her in a negative way that could cause her to

attempt or commit suicide, or to strike out and harm my children or me. I

deny ever doing any thing during the summer of 2013 that would have been

detrimental to the health, the safety, or the interests of Tetyana Kimberlin or her

children, and there is no evidence to the contrary. I deny that I have ever suggested

that she do any thing to harm Brett Kimberlin, and there is no evidence to the

contrary.

m.) Mr. Hoge has been using the Internet, blogs, Twitter, and other

electronic means to stalk and harass me. Brett Kimberlin claims that

speaking or writing negative but truthful things about him is harassment. I deny

that I have every stalked or harassed anyone using the Internet, blogs, Twitter , or

other electronic means, and there is no evidence to the contrary. I deny that I have

every engaged in any act or group or acts, alone or in concert with another, that

5
would violate either Md. Crim. L. 3-802 or 3-803, and there is no evidence to the

contrary.

n.) He is doing this to harm me and my reputation, and destroy my

business and ability to earn a living. I deny that it is possible to harm Brett

Kimberlins reputation.2. I deny that I have ever done any act for the purpose of

harming or destroying Brett Kimberlins business or to impair his ability to earn a

living, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

3. I allege that Bretts Kimberlins email to counsel for the U.S. Chamber

of Commerce referenced in Count VI (Exhibit 2) was false and misleading in the

manner with which it represented the temporary peace order as served on me.

Exhibit 3.

4. During the 14 May, 2015, peace order hearing, Kelsie Kimberlin

proffered the communication between Brett Kimberlin and Twitter concerning the

suspension of my @wjjhoge Twitter account reference in Count IX. I was able to

briefly examine the document which appeared to be a email or exchange of emails

between Brett Kimberlin and Twitter. Kimberlin has failed to produce the

document in discovery.

2In the Twitchy Defendants/ motion to dismiss in Kimberlin v. National Bloggers

Club, et al. (II), Case No, 403868V, Docket Item 44 (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont Co. July 28,
2015), the point was raised that Brett Kimberlins reputation is so bad as a result of
his criminal history that he is now defamation proof. Judge Mason adopted that
as one of the bases for dismissing the suit against those defendants because
Kimberlin had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. NBC (II),
Docket Item 78, Sep. 3, 2015. Judge Mason restated that ground as a reason for
dismissal of the suit against Aaron Walker as well. NBC (II), Docket Item 154, Jan.
14, 2016.

6
 5. Brett Kimberlin states in paragraph 19 of his Motion for Summary

Judgment (Docket Item 144/0) that because he filed his complaints against me via

Twitters automated system that no defamation occurred because only a robot saw

the communication. I received multiple emails from Twitter concerning the account

suspensions, including at least one that was obviously written by a human being

attending to the problem. Exhibit 4.

6. All of the allegation I made in Counts I, VI, and IX in my Complaint

are true.

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: 11 May, 2017 __________________________________

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

7
 Exhibit 1
Application for Statement of Charges filed by Brett Kimberlin on 30 July, 2013.
 Exhibit 2
Email sent by Brett Kimberlin to the counsel for the U. S. Chamber of
Commerce on 9 March, 2015. Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams LLP, et al., Case No.
15-CV-723, Reply Memorandum, ECF No. 71-1 (D.Md. Sep. 25, 2015), Ex. 1.
Case 8:15-cv-00723-GJH Document 71-1 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2
 Exhibit 3
Temporary Peace Order as served on Mr. Hoge.
 Exhibit 4
Extracts of emails from Twitter received by Mr. Hoge.
 From: Twitter Support support@twitter.com
Subject: Case# 18572582: Follow-up to suspension appeal: @wjjhoge
Date: 6 July, 2015 at 18:13
To: himself@wjjhoge.com

Hello,

We have unsuspended your account @wjjhoge after a detailed

re-review. We are sorry for the inconvenience. Please note that it
may take an hour or so for your follower and following numbers
to return to normal.

Additionally, we received word that you believe another account

has been wrongfully suspended but were unable to locate it
based on the information we received. Feel free to reply to this
email with that information and wed be happy to re-review that
action as well.

Thanks,

Twitter

Reference #ref:00DA0000000K0A8.500G000000kU5D7:ref

Help
Twitter, Inc. 1355 Market Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94103
 From: Twitter Support support@twitter.com
Subject: Case# 18572582: Follow-up to suspension appeal: @wjjhoge
Date: 8 July, 2015 at 20:55
To: himself@wjjhoge.com

Hello,

Thanks for providing this additional information. I have re-

reviewed the accounts that youve provided. Please see below
for more details and required actions:

@DisgruntledDM

Upon an additional review of this account, I found that it is not in

violation of the Twitter Rules and have unsuspended the
account. I apologize for the inconvenience.

It may take an hour or so for the follower and following numbers

to return to normal.

@wjjhoge, @hogewash and @wjj_hoge

In reviewing the two provided accounts and comparing them

with the previously unsuspended account, I found them all to
have overlapping use cases, which is a violation of the Twitter
Rules.

You may select one account for restoration; the rest will remain
suspended. The account you choose will need to comply fully
with our rules, as additional violations may result in permanent
suspension.

I suggest you review the information on the following pages:

 Exhibit F
Extract from Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V, Trial Transcript
(Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Oct. 13, 2016) at 75-77.
 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 --
 75

1 THE WITNESS: I, I just --

2 MR. WALKER: He should probably have a chance to look

3 at it.

4 THE WITNESS: I haven't even looked at it. I don't

5 even --

6 MR. WALKER: I'm sorry, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Okay. Well then, why don't you ask him

8 the questions from the last three pages that aren't objected

9 to.

10 MR. WALKER: Yeah, yeah. That's fine.

11 BY MR. WALKER:

12 Q Okay. Did you write that petition yourself?

13 THE COURT: Which petition are you talking about?

14 MR. WALKER: I'm sorry.

15 BY MR. WALKER:

16 Q The petition against Mr. Hoge on behalf of your

17 daughter, yourself?

18 A Yeah, uh-huh.

19 Q Okay.

20 A I certainly did, but my wife had, you know, had input

21 into it. I mean, she was definitely upset about what was

22 happening to Kelsie.

23 Q Okay. To the extent that the language between this

24 document and the charges you filed against me are similar,

25 isn't it reasonable to assume that that is because you drove

 76

1 the content in both cases --

2 THE COURT: It's an argument.

3 MR. WALKER: Okay. I'll just --

4 THE WITNESS: You have a question?

5 THE COURT: There is no question pending.

6 MR. WALKER: Okay. Can I see Exhibit 1 again? Oh,

7 here we go. Okay.

8 BY MR. WALKER:

9 Q Let me ask you another question about these charges.

10 A Which ones?

11 Q This is the charges that you filed, that -- I'm

12 sorry -- Tetyana signed against me.

13 A Right.

14 Q Why didn't you file the charges in my own name -- in

15 your own name?

16 A Well, it's, it's actually interesting because my wife

17 and I went to the commissioner's office together, and we

18 originally planned to file it together, and, and on the first

19 page, it says, Tetyana and Brett Kimberlin re Kelsie Kimberlin.

20 And the commissioner read the charges and he said, "I

21 can't accept a charge from two people in the same charging

22 document. It has to be only one person."

23 And I asked him, "Who would you suggest?"

24 He says, "Your wife is listed first, so I'm going to

25 cross your name out" -- it's right here on the front

 77

1 page -- "I'm going to cross your name out, and, and she should

2 be the one to sign it." And that's what happened. So we did

3 do it jointly, and --

4 Q Okay.

5 A And the statement, if you look at the statement --

6 THE COURT: Well, you've answered --

7 MR. WALKER: Yeah.

8 THE COURT: -- the question that he asked.

9 BY MR. WALKER:

10 Q Isn't the real reason why you didn't file under your

11 own name, because you had filed so many charges against so many

12 people, besides me and Mr. Hoge, that the State's Attorney's

13 Office doesn't take you seriously anymore?

14 A Absolutely not. In fact, since you've opened this

15 door, the State's Attorney's Office, when they nolle prossed

16 this charge, told us that they were nolle prossing it

17 because --

18 MR. WALKER: Objection.

19 THE WITNESS: -- I think --

20 THE COURT: Sustained. That's, I sustained the

21 objection. Move on.

22 MR. WALKER: Okay.

23 BY MR. WALKER:

24 Q All right. Okay. Let's see here. I want to look at

25 the charges you filed against me on July 30th, 2013. Is that

 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