Mot to Strike DI 47 Redacted

8/16/2019 Mot to Strike DI 47 Redacted

1/19

William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff ,

v.

Brett Kimberlin, et al.,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S 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

signer’s 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.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR C ARROLL COUNTY

M ARYLAND

Case No. 06-C-16-070789


2/19

Brett Kimberlin is an experienced pro se litigator. He is well aware of his1

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.1

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 entityreceiving 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. 8:97-cv-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 actionin 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-03059-

PWG.

Id. at 2, 3.

2


3/19


4/19

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

A D H OMINEM A TTACKS

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 individual” in Docket Item 47 Further, in Brett3

It is worth noting that Brett Kimberlin routinely accuses his legal adversaries3

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).

4


5/19

Kimberlin’s 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 Walker’s Frivolous

and Malicious Complaint” recently filed in Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No.4

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 Kimberlin’s 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. That may6

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.4

See attached exhibits. If there is any question of authentication, certified copies5

will be provided.

Id., ECF No. 97, Mar. 5, 2014, and ECF No. 133, June 24, 2014.6

5


6/19

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

[email protected]

6


7/19

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

A FFIDAVIT

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

7


8/19

Exhibit A

Defendants’s Answer to Plaintiff Walker’s Frivolous and Malicious Complaint,

Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V (Md. Cir.Ct Mont Co.)


9/19


10/19

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.)


11/19


12/19


13/19


14/19


15/19


16/19


17/19


18/19


19/19

William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff ,

v.

Brett Kimberlin, et al.,

Defendants.

PROPOSED ORDER

Upon consideration of William John Joseph Hoge’s Motion to Strike Docket

Item 47 and Redact It’s 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

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR C ARROLL COUNTY

M ARYLAND

Case No. 06-C-16-070789

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	himself2462
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Mot to Strike DI 47 Redacted

Documents