Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. News

This reply to The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin’s opposition to my motion to compel compliance with the subpoena to GoDaddy LLC in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit was filed this morning. The reply also addresses TDPK’s improper attempt to represent Almighty Media and Breitbart Unmasked before the court.

My reply speaks for itself, so I do not intend to make any further substantive public comment on this matter outside of court filings until the court has ruled.

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


  1. Our widely admired host writes so well that the contrast humiliates his opposition. It’s very clear which litigant is “nuttier than a fruitcake.”


  2. Facts and logic are not Kimberwhine’s strong suit. In fact, Brett is so weak on the issues (and also so short) that Hoge’s responses would almost of necessity appear, to an unfamiliar outside observer, as outright child abuse.


  3. The Adjudicated Pedophile’s correct address was and should be again the local Maximum Greybar Hotel where he can be found in the shower laying pipe like he was before. He should NEVER have been let out.


  4. It really is astounding when the only person not hiding in abject terror is Blobasaurus. Of course it just may be that he is too stupid to be as afraid as the other members of Team Pedo.


  5. So Bill Schmalfeldt has been granted pauper status, and had a judge appoint a lawyer to represent him in his LOLsuit VII. Shall we start a pool on how long it takes this attorney to get Bill to withdraw the suit? The blurb about the lawyer Bill posted indicates that he is a smart guy – it should take one phone call for him to realize what he is dealing with in regard to Bill. I think the case is gone in a week.


  6. If Def 6 & 7 were served via docket 51 & 52 why did the notice of hearing 67/1 & 67/2 come back with insufficient address?


  7. I’m not entirely sure a subpoena to discover an opposing party’s address is proper, particularly when that opposing party is pro se and the address is necessary for proper service. I say that simply because it’s so foreign to practice.

    There is a requirement that you notify the opposing party how to serve documents on you. To ignore it so blatantly makes a mockery of the court system. The court should no longer presume good faith on the part of TDPK if he is not willing to abide by even the basic standards of legal procedure.

Leave a Reply