Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. News

This reply to the Kimberlins’ opposition to my motion to strike their second “answer” to the complaint in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit was filed this morning.

I do not intend to make any further substantive comment on my motion until the court has ruled.

15 thoughts on “Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. News


  1. Imagine if you could write this:

    “Defendant thinks that because he’s pro se he doesn’t need to follow the rules. Plaintiff is also pro se and was accused of being ‘nuttier than a fruitcake’ yet has no difficulty following the rules. If a ‘crazy’ pro se can follow the rules, then that implies Defendant is acting out of malice and insanity is no longer an exculpatory defense for his evil behavior.”

    🙂


  2. It appears that they want the Court to believe their opinion of the soundness of Mr. Hoge’s Complaint—together with their pro se status—allows them to pick and choose which of the Maryland Rules they will obey and which they will ignore.

    Yeah, I know, Eeyore and all that – but has the court given him any reason to believe otherwise?


  3. Very Reaganesque. I remember the media hyperventilated so hard about what a crazy madman he would be, then all he had to do to win the debates was be calm and sane. Give TDPK enough rope and he’ll hang himself…. though I’m not sure he’ll even be able to tell he’s done so, given he’s used to his feet dangling.


    • I golf-clapped at the emphasis on “when we stumble.” Bravo, sir.

      I am curious as to why the continuing lack of “signed under penalty of perjury,” certification of service by the court’s order, and the lack of a return address weren’t also mentioned. I find myself speculating that Our Gracious Host is saving that for something big…


      • The purpose of such an affidavit is [redacted], and Brett Kimberlin is not able to do so until the law changes on 1 October. Until then, he has the option of [redacted], but he isn’t doing it.


        • But his blushing bride has no such restrictions, and since she is also signing the documents shouldn’t HER name be in “Penalty of Perjury” paragraph as well?


      • I am curious as to why the continuing lack of “signed under penalty of perjury,” certification of service by the court’s order, and the lack of a return address weren’t also mentioned.

        Because it has been called out on multiple occasions before. And the court has done exactly, well, nothing. Nothing at all. And, even better, BK adds it to his injustice list, that his adversaries are expecting him to abide by all these HYPERTECHNICAL! rules and see, judge, they are being mean to me!

        He does it because the courts let him do it. Mr Hoge has been trying to goad the courts – sometimes subtly, sometimes not so much – into, at a minimum, saying “hey, this isn’t Nam, there are rules!” But apparently Rockville is Little Hanoi.

Leave a Reply