Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and replies to Defendants Response
INTRODUCTION
directed at Mrs. Kimberlin explains how her answers to the interrogatories are
responsive or complete. Nor does the Defendants Opposition offer any lawful
partial answer to Interrogatory 1, that answer is still incomplete. She still has not
testimony, and she has not provided contact information for her potential witnesses.
The interrogatory asks for a brief description, by category and location, of all such
documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that she intends
to use as evidence for her defense. Simply saying that she will pull things out of an
Hoge in the past. They state that he knows exactly what the evidence is that will
daughter. Defendants Opposition, 1. Mr. Hoge has been through two peace
order hearings based on a petition from Brett Kimberlin, and he has not yet seen a
harassment.
trial, Mr. Hoges involvement in it, and what evidence he may have gathered as a
Id. In fact, Mr. Hoge was never cross examined on anything related to harassment
Mr.Hoge was shown documents that did not come into evidence. For example:
2 Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2016).
2
Q [Kimberlin] Im going to show you Exhibit 31.
A [Hoge] Oh, yeah, these are the forged comments that you
tried to introduce in the peace order hearing back in March of 2015.
A I
Walker v. Kimberlin, Trial Transcript, Oct. 12, 2016, at 193. See Exhibit A. Mr.
Hoge has no knowledge of what Brett Kimberlin intended to prove with such
inadmissible documents.3 Mrs. Kimberlin never examined Mr. Hoge during the
Finally with respect to Interrogatory 3, whether or not Mr. Hoge has copies of
any documents or other evidence is not material to whether or not Mrs. Kimberlin
intends to use something as a part of her defense. The purpose of the interrogatory
is to identify all such things for Mr. Hoge so that he is not blindsided at trial. You
already have what I might use, is not a proper answer. A properly cataloged,
Mrs. Kimberlin has still not pointed to a specific incident or writing or statement.
3The Kimberlins also continue to misrepresent the findings of the jury in the
Walker v. Kimberlin case. That jury made no findings of facts concerning Mr. Hoge.
3
She should either do so or admit that she has no such evidence. Tetyana Kimberlin
granted Mr. Hoges motion to unseal Case No. 3D00333028, the case underlying
Count XI of the Complaint. That court did so last year. Mr. Hoge filed his motion
to unseal after a Motion to Seal or Otherwise Limit Inspection of a Case Record was
filed in Mrs. Kimberlins name.4 On information and belief, Mrs. Kimberlin did not
file that motion, and the identity of the person who drafted and filed the motion
bears on the truthfulness of statements made under oath by Brett and Tetyana
answer Interrogatory 8.
that the dates of the travel in question are well before the time frame of the acts at
issue in this lawsuit. However, the actual dates of that travel go to the truthfulness
4Mr. Hoge learned of the Motion to Seal when the Clerk of the District Court sent
him a copy of the order denying it. Mr. Hoge was never served with the motion
when it was filed.
4
of statements she made to Mr. Hoge during the summer of 2013, and Mr. Hoge
relied to those statements by Mrs. Kimberlin while taking steps to help her in 2013.
Kimberlins whereabouts during the time period in question also bear on the
truthfulness of statements made under oath by both Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin.
The Kimberlins seem to believe that they should be allowed to pick which of
the Maryland Rules they will obey and which they will ignore. They have explicitly
stated that they do not intend to be bound by Rule 2-422(d) which requires that
clearly allowed under Rule 2-402(a) which disallows objections based the belief that
the inquiring party may already have information or be able to otherwise obtain
information.
5
Many of those documents were used at the two prior peace order
hearing and at the civil trial. In addition, Plaintiff has copies of the
transcripts of that trial[.]
Id., 1.
As this Court told the Kimberlins during the 27September, 2016, motions
hearing, there is not one set of rules for lawyers and another for pro se litigants.
Mr. Hoge appreciates the Courts patience in dealing with a lawsuit among a group
of pro se litigants, but he believes that all parties, including Tetyana Kimberlin,
should be held to the Maryland Rules She should not be allowed to flout them.
scheduled to close in this lawsuit in less than two weeks. According to the Courts
Scheduling Order, dispositive motions are due two later on 28 April, 2017. Tetyana
answers to Mr. Hoges interrogatories is prejudicing his ability to meet the Courts
CONCLUSION
13 February, 2017, and to grant such other relief as the Court may find just and
proper.
6
Date: 3 April, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 3rd day of April, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing on
the following persons:
William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 422 3rd Avenue North, Clinton,
Iowa 52732
Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817
Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817
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.
7
Exhibit A
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
------------------------------X
:
AARON WALKER, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil No. 398855
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL., :
:
Defendants. :
:
------------------------------X
JURY TRIAL
------------------------------X
:
AARON WALKER, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil No. 398855
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL., :
:
Defendants. :
:
------------------------------X
Rockville, Maryland
matter commenced
APPEARANCES:
Exhibit No. 1 -- 13
Exhibit No. 2 -- 13
Exhibit No. 3 -- 17
Exhibit No. 4 21 21
Exhibit No. 5 -- 22
Exhibit No. 6 -- 24
Exhibit No. 1 -- 37
Exhibit No. 2 -- 41
Exhibit No. 10 -- 79
Exhibit No. 11 -- 83
Exhibit No. 17 -- 106
Exhibit No. 18 -- 105
Exhibit No. 19 -- 107
Exhibit No. 26 -- 114
Exhibit No. 30 -- 164
Exhibit No. 41 -- 246
Exhibit No. 42 -- 250
193
4 BY MR. KIMBERLIN:
6 Bethesda Gazette?
13 2015.
15 A I --
19 forged.
21 been marked.
22 BY MR. KIMBERLIN:
24 that Tweet?
25 A Yes.
279
Digitally signed by Pat Ives
AARON WALKER
v.
By:
_________________________
PAT IVES
Transcriber