You are on page 1of 17




COMES NOW Defendant William Hoge and hereby moves that this Court order Plaintiff to file all future papers (motions, pleadings, and the like) under verification, requiring that Plaintiff swear under penalty of perjury that all facts stated therein are true and correct. In support of this motion, Mr. Hoge states:

1. Plaintiff is a convicted perjurer. See U. S. v. Kimberlin, 483 F.Supp. 350 (S.D. Ind. 1979), 3.

2. Plaintiff has an ongoing history of making false statements when allowed to testify in court. For example, during the damages hearing in the Plaintiffs lawsuit

against Seth Allen (Amended Complaint, 34.), Plaintiff testified as follows when asked about his parole revocation: Q Were you released and then sent back to prison for a parole violation, for failure to pay compensation to the, Ms. Delong (phonetic sp.), the wife of Carl Delong, who took his own life after those bombs -No. -- tore up half his body? No, I wasnt.


See Kimbeline v. Allen (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2011) Case No. 339254, Nov. 14, 2011, transcript at 40. (Extracts in Exhibits A and B) Plaintiff did, in fact, have his parole for his bombing and drug smuggling sentences revoked, and his failure to make restitution was one of the reasons for the revocation. See Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F.Supp.2d 487 (D. Md. 1998).

3. Again, in the same proceeding cited in the paragraph above, Plaintiff testified as follows: Q Okay. That, how many lawsuits have you filed over your lifetime? I have none.

Id. at 55. (Extract in Exhibit C) It seems surprising that Plaintiff could not remember having filed any lawsuits, especially after being reminded of the DeLongs. He sued the

widow of Carl DeLong, the victim of his eighth bomb, to prevent her from attaching funds in his prison commissary account which were due to her as restitution. See Kimberlin v.

Department of Justice, et al., 788 F.2d 434 (7th Cir. 1986).

4. In an email to Defendant Frey sent about a year before his testimony in the Allen damages hearing, Plaintiff bragged that

I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money and for what., viewed at 12:46 am, 30 November, 2013. Although the email is not sworn testimony, it is consistent with publicly available information about Plaintiff. A search on the keyword Kimberlin using Google Scholar returns a large number of federal and state cases captioned Kimberlin v. [Defendant] where the Kimberlin bringing the suits is the instant Plaintiff. A partial list of pro se cases includes Kimberlin v. Department of Treasury, 774 F.2d 204 (7th Cir. 1985). Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, et al., 788 F.2d 434 (7th Cir. 1986). Kimberlin v. Brewer, 825 F.2d 1157 (7th Cir. 1987). Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, 921 F.Supp. 833 (D. DC 1996). Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, 129 F.3d 944 (D. DC 1998). Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F.Supp. 487 (D. Md. 1998). Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, 150 F.Supp.2d 36 (D. DC 2001).
5. Plaintiff has a history of including falsehoods in written court filings. For example, in his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeals concerning a peace order petition (against Defendant Walker of the instant lawsuit) which was denied by the Circuit Court, Plaintiff alleged that the trial court did not allow him to

question Mr. Walker. (Extract in Exhibit D) Review of the the trial transcript shows that when Plaintiff attempted to introduce evidence alleged to be writings by Mr. Walker, the court informed him that the writings would need to be authenticated. Plaintiff said that he would ask Mr. Walker to do so when he was called as witnessand then did not call him. Plaintiffs case was so flimsy that Mr. Walker did not bother to put on a defense, and the court denied the Plaintiffs petition. The court did not refuse to allow Plaintiff to call Mr. Walker. The Plaintiff forgot to do so, but claimed otherwise in his petition to the Court of Appeals. See Kimberlin v. Walker (Md.Cir.Ct. Mont.Co. 2012) Case No. 8444D, transcript at 82-84. (Extract in Exhibit E)

6. Plaintiff was sued by Defendant Walker in this Court in 2012. In a Motion for Sanctions filed against Mr. Walkers attorney (Dan Backer of Defendant DB Capitol Strategies), Plaintiff alleged The Complaint asserts, without any evidence, that Defendant Kimberlin and the judges of Montgomery County are corrupt and that this corruption is so pervasive that this court must step in and use the power of the federal courts to oversee the conduct of Defendant Kimberlin and the Maryland Courts. See Walker v. Kimberlin (D. Md. 2012) Case No. 12-CV-01852, Document 30 at 6. Mr. Walker made no such assertion in his Complaint. Id., Document 18 passim. While Mr. Walker did seek to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant, he made no allegations of

corruption or impropriety concerning Marylands courts or judges, nor did he seek any federal supervision of those state courts.

7. Although Plaintiff is an experienced litigator (many of his over a hundred lawsuits have been handled pro se), he makes the same sort of errors over and over while trying to get evidence before a court. A few mistakes might be attributable to a pro se litigants lack of legal experience, but Plaintiffs continuing behavior is beyond that. According to his authorized biography, Citizen K: The Deeply Weird American Journey of Brett Kimberlin (Mark Singer, Knoff, New York, 1996.), Plaintiff is not inexperienced. Then I branched into tort claims against the Bureau of Prisons and other civil litigation. I filed a shitload of civil suits. I started suing everybodyall the people who lied about me. I sued the agents who performed the illegal search and seizure of my home and property. Eventually, Kimberlin filed more that a hundred lawsuits and motions in the federal courts on his own behalf, and nearly the many for other convicts. (p. 185.) He continued to practice law, though less aggressively than before. In a way, I was relieved to go to [FCI] El Reno because I was overwhelmed with work at [FCI] Oxford, he said. I wanted a break for a while. I felt burned out. I refused to take any cases at El Reno for six months, and I probably took only a dozen cases while I was there. I made less money at El Reno than anywhere else because I was working in the library and had to do a lot of things for free that I normally would have charged for. (p. 218.) One is left wondering whether Plaintiff might be unintelligent or acting in bad faith. Also at Oxford, where the University of Wisconsin extension service had an office within the prison walls, Kimberlin began enrolling in college-level courses. He would spend the next six years achieving a

Bachelor of Science degree in human service, with a specialization in community legal services, issued by Thomas Edison State University of New Jersey. Along the way, he also picked up an Associate of Science degree from the State University of New York and a paralegal degree from Blackstone School of Law, in Dallas. His final college transcript showed a cumulative grade point average of 3.96. (Id. at 214)

8. Plaintiff has made multiple questionable allegations in his Amended Complaint which cannot be directly addressed because of their lack of particularity. Given Plaintiffs long history, Defendant Hoge is justifiably concerned that Plaintiff will continue his habitual lying as he files additional papers in the instant lawsuit.


WHEREFORE, Defendant Hoge moves that this Honorable Court order 1. That all further papers (motions, pleadings, and the like) filed by Plaintiff in the instant lawsuit filed with the Court shall be certified by Plaintiff to be true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry, 2. That Plaintiff shall certify all factual contentions in all further papers filed in the instant lawsuit have evidentiary support or are likely to have such support following discovery, and

3. That such certifications be made under under penalty of perjury. In addition, Mr. Hoge asks that this motion be considered on an expedited basis so that Plaintiff might be required to file any opposition to Mr. Hoges previous Motion to Dismiss as a verified pleading.

12 December, 2013 Date: ____________________

Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, III, pro se 20 Ridge Road Westminster, Maryland 21157 voice (410) 596-2854 no fax

Certificate of Service

12th day of December, 2013, I served copies of this Motion to I certify that on the ______ Require Verified Pleadings from Plaintiff on the following parties via U. S. Mail or email as noted:
Brett Kimberlin at 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817 Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020 James O Keefe, III, at 1214 W. Boston Post Road #145, Mamaroneck, New York 10543 Text Lee Stranahan at Mandy Nagy at at 149 South Barrington #735, Los Angeles, California 90049 National Bloggers Club at Glen Beck at 1270 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020 Michelle Malkin at 445C E. Cheyenne Mountain Blvd., Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906 Erick Erickson at 735 Waverly Pt., Macon, Georgia 31210 Ace of Spades at 3131 Homestead Road, #3E, Santa Clara, California 95051 Patrick Frey at Twitchy at 445C E. Cheyenne Mountain Blvd., Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906 Mercury Radio Arts at 1270 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020 The Blaze, Inc., at 1133 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor, New York, New York 10036 Red State at 1 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 600, Washington, D. C. 20002 DB Capitol Strategies at The Franklin Center at 1229 King Street, 3rd Floor, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Aaron Walker at Robert Stacy McCain at Ali Akbar at Kimberlin Unmasked at

William John Joseph Hoge, III, pro se 20 Ridge Road Westminster, Maryland 21157 voice (410) 596-2854 no fax


------------------------------x : BRETT KIMBERLINE, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : SETH ALLEN, : : Defendant. : : ------------------------------x

Civil No. 339254


Rockville, Maryland

November 14, 2011

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. 12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210 Germantown, MD 20874 (301) 881-3344


pfa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q question. MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir. Q THE COURT: MR. ALLEN: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: You cant --- apologize. You cant talk over each other. Well, that, thats -Next question.


BY MR. ALLEN: More recently than 32 years ago, from your original

trial, if thats the date youre getting to, were you -A Q A Q I am not --- released? -- on parole. Were you released and then sent back to prison for a

parole violation, for failure to pay compensation to the, Ms. Delong (phonetic sp.), the wife of Carl Delong, who took his own life after those bombs -A Q A No. -- tore up half his body? No, I wasnt. THE COURT: MR. ALLEN: THE COURT: Okay. I believe, Id have to check -Thats your question. Get to the next

BY MR. ALLEN: Do you think private individuals get mentioned, are


pfa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q question. MR. ALLEN: Okay. Q Q Okay. That, how many lawsuits have you filed over


your lifetime? A I have none. THE COURT: MR. ALLEN: Thats not relevant. Not relevant.

BY MR. ALLEN: And just, just so were clear on this, you, youre

contending you were never sent back to prison for parole violations? THE COURT: MR. ALLEN: THE COURT: Hes already answered that. And he said, no? Hes already answered that. Next

Ill order a, a copy of the, okay.

BY MR. ALLEN: What statements have you brought to the Court that

you contend were part of the causation that I, that I wrote? Can you please share that with the Court, so we -A Q A Q A Again, again, -You dont have any? -- stalking and harassment is, -Do you have any statements? -- you know, -THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Dont interrupt him. Each, each --





AARON WALKER, Respondent

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AFTER JUDGMENT The Petitioner, Brett Kimberlin, pro se, moves, pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-301, for the issuance of a writ of certiorari after judgment in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, sitting as an appellate court over the judgment of the District Court of Montgomery County, to review the above-captioned case, In support of this petition, and pursuant to Rules 8-303(b)(1) and (2), Petitioner states: 1, The case was docketed as a Peace Order in the District Court on January 9, 2012 as Brett Kimberlin v, Aaron No 0601SP005392012. The trial

judgment was entered on February 8, 2012 in favor of Petitioner, Brett Kimberlin, Appx, 4. 2. Respondent Aaron Walker filed an appeal to the Circuit Court on Montgomery County On April 11, 2012, Judge Eric Johnson of the Circuit Court reversed the judgment of the District Court in a line order finding that Petitioner could not meet the statutory burden of proot Appx, 2 In his oral ruling trom the bench, he stated that although Respondent assaulted Petitioner on January 9, 2012, there was no evidence that Respondent would commit another assault Appx 3, pp,98-100


EXHIBIT D 1 of 2

3 Copies are attached hereto of (i) the docket entries showing the judgment of the Circuit Court. Appx. 1; (ii) the line order of the Circuit Court, Appx 2; (iii) the transcript of the Circuit Court trial, Appx 3; (iv) the written decision of the District Court, Appx 4; (5) docket entries showing five criminal charges filed by Respondent against Petitioner that were nolle prossed. Appx 5,

1, Whether it was erroneous for the Circuit Court to prohibit evidence of sustained harassment by Respondent that occurred before and after an assault by Respondent when the Distr'ict Court considered all that evidence when issuing the temporary and final Peace Orders, and this Court's decision in Galloway 11, State, 781 A.2d 851 (2001) holds that repeated unwanted, alarming and annoying contact constitutes harassment under Maryland Code 18-3-803 2" Whether it was erroneous for the Circuit Court to prohibit evidence of Respondent's repeated post assault retaliatory harassment to demonstr'ate future harassment as required by Maryland Code 18-3-1505c(i)(ii) 3, Whether the Circuit Court erred in dismissing the Peace Order without allowing Petitioner to question Respondent or requiring Respondent to put on evidence when (1) it was Respondent who appealed to the Circuit Court and (2) Respondent was present and the witness with personal knowledge of his long term harassment of Petitioner,

EXHIBIT D 2 of 2


------------------------------x : BRETT KIMBERLIN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : AARON WALKER, : : Defendant. : : ------------------------------x

Civil No. 8444D


Rockville, Maryland

April 11, 2012

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. 12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210 Germantown, MD 20874 (301) 881-3344

EXHIBIT E 1 of 4

cc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now. MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: Okay.

82 The only picture that I got was that picture of him coming at me with the hand. That certainly -- and the policy Security personnel or

specifically says violation of the rule.

other court personnel may confiscate or retain an electronic device that is used in violation of Maryland Rule 16-110, subject to further order of the Court or until the owner leaves the building. I understood that and when the police came up, I told them that I had taken a picture. I showed them the iPad and They, you know -- Mr. Hes not a court He took it

they did not take the iPad from me. Walker is not a security personnel. personnel. from me.

He had no right to confiscate my iPad.

You know, if he didnt want me taking a picture, he

could have stopped right there and said, Im going to go tell the court personnel that Mr. Kimberlin took a picture or whatever. THE COURT: Hold on a second. Youre into argument

Have you rested your case? No. The other thing that Mr. --


Youre giving factual testimony. Okay. Im just trying to respond to

MR. KIMBERLIN: something that he said. THE COURT:

I was trying to --


EXHIBIT E 2 of 4

cc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. KIMBERLIN:

83 I was misusing the court process or

something to identify Mr. Walker. THE COURT: redirect testimony. Go ahead. REDIRECT EXAMINATION THE WITNESS: Mr. Walker had been involved with Seth For the record, Ill consider this

Allens case for a long time and Judge Jordan issued a court order that allowed me to take further discovery in the form of interrogatories, and I propounded interrogatories to Mr. Aaron Worthing but I couldnt find him. He professed to be an attorney. I didnt know who he was. I looked on all the legal

Martindale-Hubbells and all this, trying to find out who Aaron Worthing was. There was no Aaron Worthing. So thats why I

filed a motion with the Court to order the identity of Mr. Worthing so that I could serve him with the interrogatories that Judge Jordan had ordered and allowed. fact. It had nothing to do with, quote, out him or identify him, or some nefarious purposes that Im being accused of. have never published his name in any way, shape, or form. dont blog myself. blogs myself. right. THE COURT: All right. I dont Tweet myself. I I Thats a simple

I dont comment on

So for him to say that was my motivation is not

EXHIBIT E 3 of 4

cc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Any other witnesses? MR. KIMBERLIN: THE COURT: MR. BOURS: No, sir.


Is the petition addressed? Im going to ask that you make a finding

now that the petitioner has not met, even initially, the burden of proof required under the statute. Theres a part of this, I

assume, that hes just completely unaware and theres just been no testimony in support of it. A final peace order requires a

showing that one of the acts that is prohibited under Section 3-1503 has occurred and that its likely to recur. in question is (c)(II). orders. If the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent has committed one of the acts in the first statute and is likely to commit in the future an act specified in 3-1503(a) of the subtitle against the petitioner, then you can issue the peace order. Now I dont think you should find, ultimately, that theres clear and convincing evidence that any act, including assault, has occurred. Certainly, theres no proof of The statute

Its 3-1505(c)(1)(ii), final peace

harassment which was the basis of the District Court order under that statute. On top of that, there is absolutely no

evidence at all that this man is likely to commit in the future an act specified in 3-1503. Theres just no testimony at all This is

and without that, the Court cant grant a peace order.

EXHIBIT E 4 of 4