t,

Honorable Judge Paul Grimm

6500 Cherrywood Lane
Greenbelt, MD20770
Re: Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club,
No, PWG 13-3059
Re: Rule 11 Motion re attorney Michael Smith
Dear Judge Grimm:
fILED _
11 s. O:STRICT ~O,U~.i
May 9.i',z,OT4'T 0:- ~.(;\i~\Lp,NO
:..,,'I~.J i I \ , .~
I would like to file a Rule 11 motion requesting sanctions against Attorney Michael
Smith who represents Defendant Twitchy for his filing of the meritless
memorandum asking for dismissal of the Complaint on the basis of a hearing in
Montgomery County Circuit Court on April 9, 201~.
Mr. Smith has filed the pleading for an improper purpose to harass me, to provide
more fodder to unrepresented Defendants Hoge, Walker and McCain,and to present
a false narrative to this Court
On May 6,2014, I advised Mr. Smith that I would be filing a Rule 11 motion based on
this issue and provided him with a copy as required by the Rule. I only provided
that copy to him and asked that he correct or withdraw the offending pleading. Mr.
Smith, in turn, provided a copy of that unfiled Rule 11 motion, either directly or
indirectly, to Defendant Hoge who then posted it on his blog and on Scribd along
with commentary that he knows things about the case that are going to cause me
trouble and that he was "given clearance" to post the motion. Exhibit A.
I asked Mr. Smith ifhe gave the Motion to Defendant Hoge along with clearance to
post it on his blog and Mr. Smith coyly admitted that he did, and told me that if I did
not want things posted by Mr. Hoge, I should not file of send them to him. Exhibit B.
I would like to file the Rule 11 motion following the 21-day window required by the
rules to address Mr. Smith's initial filing of the meritless, malicious and improper
pleading, and his release of the Rule 11 motion to Defendant Hoge for publication
which amounts to violations of the ule and extrajudicial communications attacking
a party.
Sincerel , .
Brett Ki
8100 Beec Tree Rd
Bethesda, MD20817
(301) 3205921
j usti cejtmp@comcastnet.
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l26 Filed 05/09/l4 Page l of l
Team Kimberlin Post of the Day
Posted on 8 May, 2014
112
26-"'0 Rate This
Both of Tho Dread Pro-So Kimberlin's vexatious lawsuits in which I am a defendant are
grinding their ways through the state and federal courts. Given the frivolous nature of
TDPK's complaints, I havo optimistic expectations concerning the final results of the suits.
There have boen several recent developments that lead me to believe that Brett
Kimberlin is becoming desperate. Indeed, it seems that panic has driven him to turn the
stupid knob up to 4+ 12.
All is proceeding as I have foreseen-and I hope to be able to share the details of some of
TDPK's latest mistakes before long.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE-As I've noted above, good legal strategy prevents me from publishing everything
I know about. However, I've been given clearance to share this example of TDPK's going
full-Acme.
'I
!
U~ITEO STATES DISTRICT COURT
D1~-rRICT OF l>IARYLAND
GRI::f.~HELT DIVISIO~
HRETr KIMHI::RLlN.
Plaintiff.
~
~
v.
:'iATIO~AL HLOGGI::RS (LOH. et al.
Defendants.
~o PWG 13.3059
"""
MOTION AND !ltEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RULE 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST
PLANITIFF 1WITCIIY'S ATTORNEY MICIIAI::L S!ltITH
Defendant Hn:tt Kimberlin submits this motion and memorandum ollaw in
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l26-l Filed 05/09/l4 Page l of l
I
From: Michael Smith <smlth@smlthpllc.com>
Oat", Thursday, May 8, 2014 at 10:54 PM
To: Justice Through MusIc <JustlceJtmp@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club et al.
;'.~ ,_ IW-;:.:-:c,ve ."...1i'''P .... 'a ... ''" ?" .. "'-""Il:'O=CTiJlZ>l""" . - ',.- . "PV*dG'1?"W".s.-r d? '.,e... :;;,"~w,~,-"~'?"!i'w . -'.,a=. :::n 3">~ r 'fi'~'..,gzl''''-r-''r'~~~~'''o5!i . ~''''' "
Mr. Kimberlin:
As you'll recall, yesterday you sent me your Rule 11 motion, saying you would file It in 21 days if Twitchy didn't withdraw Its "motion" (by which I assume you mean, the Supplemental Memorandum). As you'll further recall, I declined your request for
withdrawal, and copied several of the 20+ co-defendants on my email to you, along with a copy of your proposed motion.
While I suggest Mr. Hoge Is best positioned to answer your specific question, I will say I see no problem whatsoever with any of the defendants you have sued making any lawful use they wish of a baseless motion you drafted, sent to two of the
defendants, and threatened to file, While you're of course free to press your case through any permissible means you choose, I would suggest that if you don't want defendants publicizing your Rule 11 motions, you send defendants no further Rule 11
motions.
Yours,
mfs
From: Justice Through Music (mallto'lusticcltmp@comcast.netJ
Sent: Thur>day, May08, 20149:39 PM
To: Michael Smith
Subject: Re: Kimberlinv. N.tional Bloue Oub et.1.
Mr. Smith:
~
~
As quote below, Mr. Hoge has updated his post to say that he has been 'given clearance" to post the Rule 11 motion that has not been flied or placed on Pacer. Would you please confirm that you gave him such clearance, since I do not want to make any factual misrepresentations to the
Court. Thank you, Brett
Team Kimberlin Post of the Day http://hogewash,com/2014/OS/08/team-kimberlin-post-of-the-day-434/>
Both of The Dread Pro-Se Klmberlin's vexatious lawsuits In which I am a defendant are grinding their ways through the state and federal courts, Given the frivolous nature of TDPK'scomplaints, I have optimistic expectations concerning the final results of the suits. There have been several
recent developments that lead me to believe that Brett Kimberlin Is becoming desperate. Indeed, It seems that panic has driven him to turn the stupid knob up to 1112.
All Is proceeding as I have foreseen-and I hope to be able to share the details of some of TOPIC'slatest mistakes before long.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE-As rve noted above, good legal strategy prevents me from publishing everything I know about. However, I've been given clearance to share this example of TOPK'sgoing full.Acme.
~
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document l26-2 Filed 05/09/l4 Page l of l