William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,
v.
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
Case No. 06-C-16-070789

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FERGUSONS MOTION TO DISMISS AND

REQUEST FOR HEARING
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and opposes Defendant Fergusons
Motion to Dismiss (Docket Item 32) and requests a hearing on said motion. In
opposition to the motion Mr. Hoge states as follows:
I. THIS COURT DOES HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT
WILLIAM FERGUSON
As will be shown below, Defendant Ferguson and his tortious conduct are
within the reach of Marylands Long Arm Statute. Ferguson has presented no
evidence to the contrary. Indeed, the bulk of his motion addresses theories of
jurisdiction which Mr. Hoge did not raise in his Complaint. Mr. Hoge alleges that
[t]his Court has personal jurisdiction over the remaining Defendants [including
Ferguson] (and, alternatively, Schmalfeldt) under Md.Cts. & Jud. P. 6-103(b) as
participants in a civil conspiracy. Complaint, 15. Ferguson utterly fails to
address this basis for jurisdiction.
A. Maryland Recognizes a Conspiracy Theory of Jurisdiction Applies to
the Maryland Long Arm Statute (Md. Cts. & Jud. P. 6-103)
The Court of Appeals has plainly stated that

[W]e have long recognized that the intent of the General Assembly
in enacting 6-103(b) was to permit all exercises of personal
jurisdiction that are consistent with due process. Therefore, given
our conclusion above that the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction is
consistent with due process, and the support in Maryland law for
the proposition that co-conspirators act as agents of one another
when they act in furtherance of a conspiracy, we conclude that the
General Assembly intended a broad construction of the term
agent and did not intend to require a showing that one exercises
control over the other. We hold that when the requirements of the
conspiracy theory are met, one co-conspirator may be the agent of
another co-conspirator within the meaning of 6-103(b).
Mackey v. Compass Marketing, Inc., 391 Md. 117, 892 A.2d, 479, 495 (2006). As to
the elements which must be alleged, the Court of Appeals ruled
that there must be a conspiracy, and that the persons who
undertook the forum-directed activities that are to serve as the
basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the other coconspirators must have been part of the conspiracy.
Id., 497.
B. Mr. Hoge Has Properly Alleged That Ferguson is a Member of a Civil
Conspiracy with Co-Conspirators Who are Maryland Residents
Mr. Hoge has alleged that a civil conspiracy was formed for the purpose of
attacking and defaming the critics of Brett Kimberlin and that Mr. Hoge has been
one of the targets of that conspiracy. Complaint, 25-27. Mr. Hoge has alleged
that Brett Kimberlin and Tetyana Kimberlin, residents of Maryland, are members
of the conspiracy. Id., 27. Further, Mr. Hoge has alleged that the Kimberlins
have committed acts of defamation and malicious prosecution against Mr. Hoge in
the furtherance of the conspiracys goals. Id., passim.

Finally, Mr. Hoge has alleged Fergusons active participation in the

furtherance of the conspiracys goals in the form of an act of defamation. Id., Count
VIII.1
All the elements necessary to establish this Courts personal jurisdiction over
Defendant Ferguson pursuant to Cts. & Jud. P 6-103(b) have been alleged within
the four corners of Mr. Hoges Complaint. Because Ferguson has offered no
evidence, the well-pleaded allegations of the Complaint are all the Court should
consider in determining personal jurisdiction.2 Thus, Fergusons motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction should be denied.
II. VENUE IS PROPER IN CARROLL COUNTY
While Ferguson acknowledges Mr. Hoges allegation of jurisdiction under Cts.
& Jud. P. 6-201(b), he fails to address Mr. Hoges allegation. Instead, he cites
1

Ferguson rather disingenuously states that he did not reasonably anticipate

being haled into a Maryland court[.] Motion to Dismiss at 5. Yet, his Update to
the 13 March, 2016, Breitbart Unmasked article cited in Count VIII contains these
word written in the clear expectation of being sued:
As for Hoge suing, go ahead and write your funny papers and file
them, we will report on that as well. In other words Hoge, you dont
scare us with your [redacted] one little bit.
Judge Calls Out Hoge For Perjury; Case Goes To Circuit Court, http://
brietbartunmasked.com/2015/03/013/judge-calls-out-hoge-for-perjury-case-goes-tocircuit-court, downloaded 16 March, 2015. See Exhibit A.
2

In Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Realtime Gaming Holding Co., LLC, 388 Md. 1 (2005)
the Court of Appeals held that the defendants motion to dismiss should have been
granted because the defendant had provided sufficient evidence for lack of personal
jurisdiction when it was not properly challenged by the plaintiff. Ferguson, on the
other hand, has provided nothing that qualifies as evidence, so there is nothing to
consider and nothing to challenge.
3

6-201(a) and 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 1400(a), none of which are applicable to the
Complaint.
There are multiple defendants. Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin reside in
Montgomery County. When some of Schmalfeldts acts were committed, he resided
in Howard County, but some were done while he has resided in Wisconsin.
Ferguson resides in California. Osborne resides in Alabama. Other parties reside
or are business entities in parts unknown. Therefore, 6-201(b) is applicable, and
the Defendants may be sued in any county in which any one of them can be sued or
in the county where the cause of action arose. Since suit in Carroll County meets
the conditions of subsection (b), venue is proper in this Court. Therefore,
Fergusons motion to dismiss for improper venue should be denied.
III. FERGUSONS MOTION HAS NOT BEEN SERVED ON MR. HOGE
Mr. Hoge obtained a copy of the instant motion by buying a copy from the
Clerk of the Court. He has not been served a copy by Ferguson. On information
and belief, the Clerk returned the motion to Ferguson the first time it was received
because it lacked a Certificate of Service. See Exhibit B. In fact, the Certificate of
Service eventually filed with the motion shows that Ferguson served it on himself
and no one else. Failure to serve the motion on Mr. Hoge provides another reason
for the Court to deny the motion.
REQUEST FOR A HEARING
Mr. Hoge requests a hearing on Fergusons Motion to Dismiss (Docket Item
32).
4

CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to DENY Fergusons Motion to Dismiss
(Docket Item 32) and for such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.
Date: 13 May, 2016

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 13th day of May, 2016, I served a copy of the foregoing on
the following persons:
William M. Schmalfeldt by email (with permission)
William Ferguson by First Class U. S. Mail to 10808 Schroeder Road, Live Oak,
California 95953

William John Joseph Hoge

VERIFICATION
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.
13 May, 2016
Date: ____________________________

___________________________________

Exhibit A
Judge Calls Out Hoge For Perjury; Case Goes To Circuit Court, http://
brietbartunmasked.com/2015/03/013/judge-calls-out-hoge-for-perjury-case-goes-tocircuit-court, downloaded 16 March, 2015.

Exhibit A has been redacted from this Scribd version because it is available elsewhere.

Exhibit B
Twitter message sent by Defendant William Ferguson. Downloaded from http://
twitter.com/sub_aetha/status/730253825861292032 on 11 May, 2016.