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 MOTION TO STRIKE DOCKET ITEM 47 AND REDACT ITS ONLINE

DOCKET ENTRY
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and moves this Court to strike Docket
Item 47 pursuant to Md. Rule 2-322(e) and to order the Clerk to redact the online
docket entry to remove improper, immaterial, and scandalous material. In support
of his motion, Mr. Hoge states as follows:
DOCKET ITEM 47 SHOULD BE STRICKEN
Docket Item 47 is facially improper based on the ad hominem attack on Mr.
Hoge found in its title. That alone is sufficient reason for it to be stricken.
In addition, Docket Item 47 is not properly signed because it lacks the
signers address, telephone number, and email address. Rule 1-311 states that if a
paper is not properly signed, it may stricken. The Court should strike Docket Item
47.
The Court may be inclined to allow these Defendants some leeway with
regard to the signature requirement because of their pro se status. It should not do
so.

Brett Kimberlin is an experienced pro se litigator.1 He is well aware of his

duty to properly sign filings and to keep the Court advised of his current contact
information. Moreover, both Mr. and Mrs. Kimberlin evaded service of process at
their last known address and were personally served when found attending a

As Judge Titus noted in a Memorandum Opinion in Kimberlin v.

Kimberlinunmasked, Case No. 13-CV-02580-RWT (D.Md. Feb. 28, 2014):
The Plaintiff is no stranger to the processes of this Court. Following his
conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana for possession of a firearm not registered to him, manufacture of a
firearm, maliciously damaging by explosion the property of an entity
receiving federal financial assistance, and damaging property of a
business used in and effecting interstate commerce, which was affirmed in
United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210 (1986), he commenced numerous
cases in this Court against the United States Parole Commission, in Brett
C. Kimberlin v. Department of Justice and U.S. Parole Commission,
CaseNo.8:98-cv-00730-AW; Brett Kimberlin v. United States Parole
Commission, et al., CaseNo. 8:97-cv-03829-AW; Brett C. Kimberlin v.
United States Parole Commission, Case No. 8:97-cv-02066-AW; Brett C.
Kimberlin v. U.S. Parole Commission, et al., Case No. 8:97-cv-01687-AW,
and Brett C. Kimberlin v. United States Parole Commission, CaseNo. 8:97cv-00431-AW, apparently in relation to his efforts to be paroled from his
conviction affirmed by the 7th Circuit in 1986. Following his release on
parole, he also brought an action in this Court which was treated as an
effort to overturn his Indiana conviction under 28 U.S.C. 2255. His
petition was denied, and the denial was affirmed by the 4th Circuit, Brett
C. Kimberlin v. Warden, Case No. 8:04-cv-02881-AW. Finally, he has been
involved in litigation concerning his personal bankruptcy in this Court,
Brett Coleman Kimberlin v. USA v. In Re: Brett Coleman Kimberlin v.
James Turner, Case No. 8:98-cv-03586-AW and Brett Kimberlin v. US
Trustee, Case No. 8:98-cv-00490-AW. Recently, he brought another action
in this Court against numerous Defendants alleging that they had been
engaged in a RICO conspiracy, a case which remains pending of this date.
Brett Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al., Case No. 8:13-cv-03059PWG.
Id. at 2, 3.

hearing in the Montgomery County Circuit Courthouse. Their actual address(es)

are unknown. As practical matter, this Court should not accept filings from them
until they are willing to let the Court know where they can be found.
Docket Item 47 should be stricken for either reason cited above.
THE DOCKET ITEM 47 TITLE SHOULD BE REDACTED IN THE ONLINE DOCKET
There can be no legitimate purpose in referring to Mr. Hoge as a Serial
Harasser and Sexual Predator2 in the title of a paper filed with this Court.
Whatever the Kimberlins' opinion of Mr. Hoge, such an improper characterization of
him has nothing to do with whether or not he might be a vexatious litigant; these
words are truly immaterial to the questions raised in the Defendants motion.
Certainly, they are scandalous and are simply used for defamatory name calling
with no evidence to back them up. Indeed, if they were published in any other

Brett Kimberlin sued Mr. Hoge for defamation for allegedly referring to Kimberlin
as a pedophile. Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont.
Co. 2014). Mr. Hoge and his co-defendants did not have to present their defense
because Judge Eric Johnson granted a motion for a directed verdict in the favor of
the defendants, finding that Kimberlin had not presented a scintilla of evidence
that the defendants statements were false. Kimberlins allegation of harassment in
that case had been thrown out on summary judgment. The same defamation claims
and related claims for false light invasion of privacy were part of the claims made
against Mr. Hoge in Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (I), Case No. 13CV-03059-GJH (D.Md. 2015) which was dismissed for failure to state a claim,
Kimberlin v. Hunton & William LLP, et al., Case No. 15-CV-00723-GJH (D. Md.
2016) which was dismissed with prejudice, and Kimberlin v. National Bloggers
Club, et al. (II), Case No. 403868V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont.Co. 2016) which was dismissed
with prejudice because of res judicata. Kimberlin continues to make his allegation
even after losing four times in two different courts and now appears to be inverting
the sexual predator accusation.
3

context, Mr. Hoge would be amending the instant suit to include another
defamation count.
In Alvarado Morales v. Digital Equipment Corp., 669 F.Supp. 1173, 1187
(D.P.R. 1987), the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico stated that
[t]he federal courts do not provide a forum for mudslinging, name calling and
privileged defamation. Mr. Hoge hopes that this Court will take steps to ensure
that it does not allow itself to become a forum for scurrilous and fact-free
privileged defamation.
Rather than allow the Kimberlins an unintended forum to publicize such
mudslinging, the Court should order the Clerk to redact the words Serial Harasser
and Sexual Predator from the online docket entry available to the public on the
Maryland Judiciary Case Search website.
BRETT AND TETYANA KIMBERLIN SHOULD BE ORDERED TO CEASE FURTHER
AD HOMINEM ATTACKS
There are other ad hominem attacks (all made without evidence) against Mr.
Hoge in the Kimberlins filing with this Court. For example, the Kimberlins refer to
him as a mentally disturbed individual3 in Docket Item 47 Further, in Brett
3

It is worth noting that Brett Kimberlin routinely accuses his legal adversaries
being mentally ill. This has included his wife (and present codefendant) when they
were estranged. For example:
[H]e has offered my mentally ill wife things of value to sign false
documents prepared by him and his associate Aaron Walker.
Complaint, 29, citing the Application for Statement of Charges, State v. Hoge,
Case No. 1D00291915 (Md. D.Ct. Mont. Co. 2013).

Kimberlins Motion to Quash (Docket Item 44), he refers to Mr. Hoge as a mentally
disturbed stalker, again without a shred of evidence.
The Kimberlins, especially Brett Kimberlin, have a history of such ad
hominem attacks. For example, in their Answer to Plaintiff Walkers Frivolous
and Malicious Complaint4 recently filed in Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No.
398855V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co.) they begin: Defendants Brett and Tetyana
Kimberlin hereby answer sexual predator, serial stalker and Plaintiff Aaron Walker
Id., Docket Item 132, May 6, 2016, at 1. Their Motion to Reconsider Denial of
Motion for Summary Judgment Before a New Judge states: that the Court has,
by words and conduct, manifested bias and prejudice, and harassed Defendants
based on prejudice against victims. Id., Docket Item 135, May 10, 2016, at 4.5
Brett Kimberlins antics led Judge Grimm to issue a Case Management
Order in Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al., Case No. 13-CV-03059-GJH
(D.Md. 2015) which Judge Hazel reaffirmed after he took over that case.6 That may
not yet be necessary in the instant lawsuit, but the Court should order the
Kimberlins to refrain from filing any further papers containing improper,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter lacking proper evidentiary support

This is another example of including improper matter in the title of a court paper.

See attached exhibits. If there is any question of authentication, certified copies

will be provided.
6

Id., ECF No. 97, Mar. 5, 2014, and ECF No. 133, June 24, 2014.
5

and that any paper filed which contains such material shall be stricken from the
docket.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to STRIKE Docket Item 47, to ORDER
the Clerk of the Court to redact the words Serial Harasser and Sexual Predator
from the online docket, and to ORDER Defendants Brett Kimberlin and Tetyana
Kimberlin to refrain from filing any further papers containing improper,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter lacking proper evidentiary support
and that any paper filed which contains such material SHALL BE STRICKEN from the
docket . Mr. Hoge also asks for such other relief as the Court may find just and
proper.

Date: 20 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 20th day of May, 2016, I served copies 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
Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817 (last known address)
Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817 (last know address)

William John Joseph Hoge

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: 20 May, 2016
William John Joseph Hoge

Exhibit A
Defendantss Answer to Plaintiff Walkers Frivolous and Malicious Complaint,
Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V (Md. Cir.Ct Mont Co.)

Exhibit B
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion for Summary Judgment Before a New Judge,
Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V (Md. Cir.Ct Mont Co.)

William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND

v.

Case No. 06-C-16-070789

Brett Kimberlin, et al.,

Defendants.

PROPOSED ORDER

Upon consideration of William John Joseph Hoges Motion to Strike Docket

Item 47 and Redact Its Online Docket Entry and any opposition thereto, this
________ day of _______________, 2016:
1.

Docket Item 47 SHALL BE STRICKEN;

2.

The Clerk SHALL redact the electronic docket entry for Docket Item 47

viewable via the Maryland Judiciary Case Search website to delete the words
Serial Harasser and Sexual Predator;
3.

Parties to this action SHALL NOT file any further court papers

containing improper, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter lacking proper

evidentiary support.
It is so ORDERED.

_______________________________________
Circuit Court Judge