Filed Today in Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al.

I filed the following motion in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit this morning.

The motion speaks for itself, and I do not intend to make any further public comment on the matter outside of court filings until after the court rules on my motion.

Murum aries attigit.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The year is not starting well for The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin.

On 4 January, Judge Hecker ordered him to answer several of the interrogatories that he tried to blow off in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit.

On 12 January, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that TDPK’s appeal against me in the RICO 2: Electric Boogaloo LOLsuit was frivolous and imposed a $600 dollar sanction on TDPK. On the same day, that court also denied his petition for a hearing because he was late filing his motion for rehearing.

13 January was the drop dead date for TDPK to refile his defective appeal paperwork in the RICO Retread LOLsuit with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. He waited until the 17th to file.

The Kimberlins filed a motion for sanctions against me in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. case because I informed one of their supposed witnesses, Judge Mason, that they had listed him as a potential witness. Judge Hecker denied their motion on 18 January at same time as he denied their motion for summary judgment.

19 January was the deadline for TDPK to obey the order Judge Hecker issued on the 4th (see above). It appears that he failed to comply with that order.

popcorn4bkThe month’s not over yet, and Kimberlin must be wondering what will go wrong for him next. There are multiple possibilities, and I plan to take steps to make a couple of items more likely to occur than some others.

Stay tuned.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

I’ll just leave this right here.wjjhvbketal-di-110

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

UPDATE—After I wrote this post and set the timer for it to go up just after midnight, I decided that I’d comment on the Kimberlins’ motions now that the Court has ruled on them. Let’s look at the “Corrected” Motion for Summary Judgement first.

The Kimberlins tried to argue that because they won the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit, they were entitled to a free pass in mine. However, I was not a party to that lawsuit and did not have an opportunity to present my side of my case to that judge and jury. The right to be heard and present one’s evidence is a fundamental part of due process. Thus, the findings the Walker case should not estop me from making claims, and they should not provide a res judicata shield to the Kimberlins. Also, I believe that the actual admissible evidence in the record showed that the Kimberlins were misrepresenting the findings in both the Walker lawsuit and the 2015 peace order petition hearings.

It seems that the court also wasn’t buying Brett Kimberlin’s specious claims that litigation privilege covered his emails that form the basis of my defamation claims against him.

Given all the defamation lawsuits he’s lost because of dismissals for failure to state a claim, it shouldn’t be surprising that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin would incorrectly claim that I have not alleged damages in my complaint—or that the court would disagree with him and side with me on that point. (Perhaps the Cabin Boy™ should take note of the court’s multiple refusals to find that I have not properly alleged damages.)

There seemed to be a great many technical problems with the motion as well, but IANAL, and I don’t want to educate the midget any more than necessary.

Now, let’s consider the motion to sanction me for writing to Judge Mason to inform him that the Kimberlins had listed him as a witness they intended to call. The motion was purely frivolous. Moreover, it was stupid, and that stupidity was compounded by the Kimberlins attaching a copy of my letter that showed that they were misrepresenting what I told the judge. I find it interesting that Judge Hecker ruled on the motion so quickly, only a week after I filed my opposition.

I don’t yet know the reason why my motion to strike the Kimberlins’ “corrected” motion was denied. One obvious reason could be that my motion became moot once the Kimberlins’ motion failed.

Stay tuned.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

popcorn4bkYesterday, I posted about the Cabin Boy’s™ use of email to attempt serve an answer to an interrogatory. I neglected to mention that the interrogatory requires the answer be in the form of a physical document delivered to a physical address. Service by email doesn’t count. (Even The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin gets that correct.) Time to obey Judge Hecker’s order runs out at midnight on the 19th.

Tick, tock.

UPDATE—Corrected the drop dead date for service of the Cabin Boy’s™ Answer to the fifteenth day following the date of the court’s order.

Legal LULZ Du Jour

tmp201701170259zOn 28 December, 2016, I received an email from Bill Schmalfeldt asking for me to make him a settlement offer in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit. He stated that it was a confidential inquiry and asked that his letter never see the light of day. I initially responded by saying that I would require time to review the case before making any offer or, indeed, deciding whether any offer would be in my interest. I sent him a settlement offer letter over the weekend. The Cabin Boy™ has responded by publishing my offer letter on his latest waste of bandwidth and by telling me, “So Hoge, go fuck yourself.”

I take that as a rejection of my offer.

I also consider his breach of the confidentiality he asked for as yet another example of the Cabin Boy’s™ bad faith. I could retaliate by posting the letter he sent me, including the crude images it contains, but I will not. I will, however, proceed with discovery and take the case to trial if necessary.

Murum aries attigit.

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

The Cabin Boy™ has been claiming that he sent me a proper response to an interrogatory in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit that the court ordered him to answer. I had no record of receiving his response. Finally, he posted this tweet—fmp201701150549zWhen I checked, there was no such email in my inbox. However, I was able to find it by searching my spam folder. (My server holds emails caught by the spam filter for a few days before purging them.) The search term that worked was the subject line “Here you go, Tuff Stuff!”, something that is not related in anyway to the lawsuit or the interrogatory. Here’s the email that I received, less the pdf attachment.bsemail20170112Note the sender’s address: Given that return address and subject line, I’m not surprised that the email was tagged as spam.

So I now have Bill Schmalfeldt’s answer to the interrogatory. It was made under penalty of perjury. We’ll see if anyone believes him.