You are on page 1of 16

4 February, 2014

Mr. Brett Kimberlin
8100 Beech Tree Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20817
Dear Mr. Kimberlin:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), I am serving you with a copy of
Defendant Hoge’s Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff in the Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et
al. lawsuit. If you have not withdrawn or corrected the court papers referenced therein within 21
days of your receipt of this letter, I will file the motion with the Court on the 22nd day following
service.
Very truly yours,
W. J. J. Hoge

www.hogewash.com
Snail Mail to 20 Ridge Road, Westminster, Maryland 21157
Email to himself@wjjhoge.com
(410) 596-2854
Hogewash! is a trademark of W. J. J. Hoge
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB,

et al.,

Defendants
DEFENDANT HOGE’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF

COMES NOW Defendant William Hoge and hereby moves that this Court sanction
Plaintiff for multiple violations of Fed. R. Civ. R. 11. In support of this motion Mr. Hoge
states the following:
SUMMARY
1. Plaintiff has on more than one occasion attempted to deceive this Court. He has
refused to properly serve court papers on various Defendants. Any one of these actions
could warrant sanctions under Rule 11(b). Also, Plaintiff has refused to follow directions
relating to Rule 11(a) issued by the Court. This Court has discretion to dismiss the
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GREENBELT DIVISION
Case No. 13-CV-03059-PWG
instant lawsuit for misconduct that seeks to abuse the judicial process and tampers with
the administration of justice. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991).
PLAINTIFF HAS DEFRAUDED THE COURT
2. Plaintiff has defrauded the Court through the use of forged and altered
documents. The Eight Circuit has noted:
In Pfizer, Inc. v. International Rectifier Corp., 538 F.2d 180 (8th Cir.1976),
this court explained that although not easily defined, “fraud on the
court ... can be characterized as a scheme to interfere with the judicial
machinery performing the task of impartial adjudication, as by preventing
the opposing party from fairly presenting his case or defense.” Id. at 195
(citations omitted). “A finding of fraud on the court is justified only by the
most egregious misconduct directed to the court itself, such as ...
fabrication of evidence by counsel, and must be supported by clear,
unequivocal and convincing evidence.” Id. (citations omitted).
Nichols v. Klein Tools, 949 F.2d 1047, 1048 ( 8th Cir. 1991). As is shown below, Plaintiff
appears to have engaged in such a scheme to interfere the judicial process.
Plaintiff Sent a Forged Summons to a Non-Party
3. On 12 November, 2013, the Clerk issued 18 summonses to the Defendants
named in the instant lawsuit, all except for Mandy Nagy, DB Capitol Strategies, and
Kimberlin Unmasked. See ECF No. 4. On 30 December, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff
2
to provide a report not later than 10 January, 2104, on the status of service of process on
Defendants. See ECF No. 21. Plaintiff filed his report (“Service Report”) on 9 January,
2014. See ECF No. 27. In paragraph 4 of that report he claims to have served a
Defendant named “Twitchy” and that Twitchy had accepted service.
4. On 27 January, 2014, Non-Party Twitchy joined Defendant Michelle Malkin in a
Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and for Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No.
41) (“Malkin/Twitchy MtD”). Noting that it is not named in the caption of the Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 2) of the instant lawsuit, Twitchy advised the Court that it had
received a forged summons and forged Amended Complaint naming it as a Defendant.
5. The summons shown in Tab 1 of the Malkin/Twitchy Mtd is an crude forgery.
Plaintiff has taken the summons issued to Defendant Aaron Walker (cf., ECF No. 4, p. 14
of 18) and superimposed Twitchy’s name and address. The crudeness of the forgery is
breathtaking. Not only is the superimposed name and address done in the wrong
typeface, it is misaligned with the other legends the Clerk placed on the summons form.
However, that is trivial compared to Plaintiff’s mistake of leaving the PACER “Case 8:13-
cv-03059-PWG Document 4 Filed 11/12/13 Page 14 of 18” notation on the summons.
6. The Malkin/Twitchy MtD provides other facts concerning this fraudulent service,
and the Malkin/Twitchy MtD is hereby incorporated by reference.
7. Plaintiff’s representation to the Court in the Service Report that he served
Twitchy and that Twitchy accepted service is clearly at odds with his obligations under
3
Rule 11(b). Additionally, his alteration of a court document and use of it as part of an
official proceeding certainly runs afoul of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). Plaintiff’s bad faith
warrants a severe sanction.
Plaintiff Has Sent Altered Amended Complaints to Defendants
8. The caption on the Amended Complaint filed with the Court (ECF No. 2) does
not list Twitchy as Defendant. The caption of “Amended Complaint” sent by Plaintiff to
Defendant Hoge lists Twitchy as Defendant. Mr. Hoge advised of the Court that the
“Amended Complaint” he received was not the same as ECF No. 2 in his Motion Dismiss
(ECF No.5) filed in December, 2013.
9. On information and belief, the caption of “Amended Complaint” sent by Plaintiff
to Defendant Walker lists Twitchy as a Defendant.
10. According to Malkin/Twitchy MtD (pp. 2 - 5 and Tab 2), the caption of
“Amended Complaint” sent by Plaintiff to Non-Party lists Twitchy as Defendant.
11. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Correct Complaint Caption (ECF No. 48) in an
attempt to amended his already Amended Complaint and portray his forgery as a “clerical
error.” Plaintiff is trying to obscure the fact that he must have been the aware of his
“error” in October, 2013, when he sent copies of “Amended Complaint” with the altered
caption to Defendants. Yet, he did not bother to inform the Court of the issue until he was
4
called out by Twitchy.
12. Neither the Amended Complaint on PACER nor the “Amended Complaint”
received by Defendant Hoge or Non-Party Twitch have a Certificate of Service. That is, of
course, a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Taken with the mismatch between what was
filed with the Court and sent to some of the Defendants, it is further evidence of Plaintiff’s
bad faith. It is clearly at odds with his obligations under Rule 11(b). Additionally, his
alteration of a document and use of it as part of an official proceeding violates 18 U.S.C.
§ 1512(c). Plaintiff’s bad faith warrants a severe sanction.
Plaintiff Has Submitted an Altered Document to the Court
13. As noted in Defendant Hoge’s Motion for Amended Report of Status of Service
(ECF No. 28) (“Motion for Amendment”), Plaintiff has provided at least one altered
document as an exhibit in his Service Report. The Motion for Amendment is hereby
incorporated by reference. The copy of the envelope and Certified Mail green card on the
mail piece allegedly sent to Robert Stacy McCain (Motion for Amendment, Exhibit A) has
insufficient postage to be a valid document. The Court should take note that Plaintiff did
not offer any explanation for that envelope or deny altering it in Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendant Hoge’s Two Latest Filings (ECF No. 49).
5
14. Plaintiff’s representation to the Court in the Service Report that the mail piece
to Defendant McCain is genuine is clearly at odds with his obligations under Rule 11(b).
Additionally, his alteration of a document and use of it as part of an official proceeding
violates 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). Plaintiff’s bad faith warrants a severe sanction.
PLAINTIFF HAS REFUSED TO PROPERLY SERVE COURT PAPERS
ON SEVERAL DEFENDANTS
15. Although Defendant Hoge has been the noisiest complainer about service of
court papers, he has not alone. Defendants Walker (ECF No. 24) and Malkin and Non-
Party Twitchy (ECF No. 41) have also noted defective service at one time or another. The
Court admonished Plaintiff about service in its Letter Order dated “January 7, 2014” (ECF
No. 26).
16. Plaintiff’s initial attempt at service on Defendant Hoge was to hand him a copy
of the original Complaint. This was not done through a third party. Plaintiff personally
handed the Complaint to Mr. Hoge.
17. Plaintiff mailed what was purported to be an copy of the Amended Complaint to
Defendant Hoge along with the Waiver of Service forms. The caption on that “Amended
Complaint” sent to Mr. Hoge did not match the caption on the Amended Complaint found
on PACER (ECF No. 2). It was the same forged Amended Complaint sent to Non-Party
Twitchy.
6
18. Plaintiff’s failure to serve his Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 18) on
Defendants Hoge and Walker delayed the filing of their Oppositions until the day that the
Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s apparent purpose in failing to serve them was
to prejudice to their ability to conduct their defenses of the lawsuit. The right to due
notice and the opportunity to be heard are not mere technicalities.
In Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 389, the necessity of due notice and an
opportunity of being heard is described as among the “immutable
principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of free government
which no member of the Union may disregard.”
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68 (1932).
19. Plaintiff again failed to serve Defendant Hoge with copies of four papers filed
with the Court on or around 17 January, 2014 (ECF Nos. 29 - 32). Five days elapsed
between the filings and the documents’ appearing on PACER, a delay which again
prejudiced Mr. Hoge’s ability to conduct his defense of the instant lawsuit. On information
and belief, Plaintiff mailed his service to Mr. Hoge to the wrong address. An image of
what is purported to be the envelope returned to Plaintiff was posted on the Twitter
account of one of Plaintiff’s associates. It shows that the envelope was addressed to 29
Ridge Road. See Exhibit A. Mr. Hoge’s address is 20 Ridge Road. The USPS tracking
information shows that the Postal Service classified the mail as “Undeliverable as
Addressed.” See Exhibit B. The Court should not treat this as a harmless error. This is
Strike Four.
7
20. Plaintiff’s continuing submission of inaccurate and misleading certificates of
service is clearly at odds with his obligations under Rule 11(b). Additionally, his
alteration of a document and use of it as part of an official proceeding violates 18 U.S.C.
§ 1512(c). Plaintiff’s bad faith warrants a severe sanction.
PLAINTIFF HAS REFUSED TO FOLLOW DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE COURT
21. The Court admonished Plaintiff about his obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P 11(b)
and cautioned him on his need to comply with requirements of Rule 11(a) to include his
address, email address, and telephone number on all filings. See ECF No. 26. He has not
yet done so. Rule 11(a) says, “The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the
omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.”
Plaintiff has had ample time to correct the signature blocks on the papers he has
submitted to the Court.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE for the reasons state above, Defendant Hoge asks that this Honorable
8
EXHIBIT A
Alleged Envelope for Service to Defendant Hoge found on page 2 of 2
Exhibit C from Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Hoge’s Two Latest Filings (ECF No. 49)
12
13
www.usps.com
From:
TO:
~ UNITED STATES
~ POSTJ3L SERVICE.
111\"1r IiITI!'\ \I
9114901159815532938543
L
lJ •••• ~Q •••• ,u
...,.,••<u•••• ,<"~
IOZ"l
L
Case 8:l3-cv-03059-PWG Document 49-3 Filed 0l/30/l4 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT B
USPS Tracking Information for Item 9114901159815532938543
Downloaded from http://https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction.action?
tRef=fullpage&tLc=1&tLabels=9114901159815532938543 on29 January, 2014
14
15