William John Joseph Hoge, IN THE

Plaintiff, CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
v.
Case No. 06-C-16-070789
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and files this Motion in Limine. Mr.

Hoge states as follows:

The purpose of this motion is to limit the issues at trial. Mr. Hoge has

identified three areas for review in limine. First, Mr. Hoge requests the Court

preclude further evidence or testimony by the Defendants related to facts admitted

to by the Defendants pursuant to Rule 5-403 as a waste of time. This would include

admissions in their Answers to the Complaint, responses to Interrogatories,

response to Requests for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents, or

other papers filed with the Court. Second, Mr. Hoge requests that the Court

preclude all evidence offered by either Brett Kimberlin or Tetyana Kimberlin except

those items provided to Mr. Hoge in discovery to which Mr. Hoge has not otherwise

objected.1 The Kimberlins did not provide an individually identified list of exhibits

as required by paragraph 10 of the Courts Scheduling Order (Docket Item 91/0).

1Mr. Hoge has included a list of objections to the Kimberlins discovery documents
as part of his Pre-Trial Statement filed pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Scheduling
Order. That Pre-Trial Statement was filed simultaneously with this Motion.
Third, Mr. Hoge requests that the Court preclude any evidence offered by William

Schmalfeldt. Schmalfeldt did not provide an individually identified list of exhibits

as required by paragraph 10 of the Courts Scheduling Order (Docket Item 91/0).

The first of these limits applies to the individual counts as follows:

I. COUNT IMALICIOUS PROSECUTION

Brett Kimberlin has admitted that he filed the Application for Statement of

Charges referenced in Count I and that the Montgomery County States Attorney

disposed of the harassment charge against Mr. Hoge by entering a nolle prosequi.

Kimberlin Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment2, Docket Item 105/0, 1, 2.

Thus, he has admitted to the first two elements of the tort of malicious prosecution,

and the only remaining questions of facts and law relate to whether there was

probable cause to charge Mr. Hoge and whether Kimberlin acted with malice.

Evidence and testimony from the Defendants related to Count I should be limited to

those topics.

II. COUNTS IIIDEFAMATION

William Schmalfeldt has admitted by default that he is the author of the

email referenced in Count III and that he knew it was false when he sent it. Hoge's

Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Item 151/0, Ex. 3 at 3. Thus, he has

partially admitted to the elements the tort of defamation, and the only remaining

2The Kimberlins have filed multiple motions for summary judgment. This motion
references Docket Items 105/0 and 144/0.

2
questions of facts and law relate to whether Mr. Hoge was damaged. Evidence and

testimony from the Defendants related to Count III should be limited to that topic.

III. COUNT IVDEFAMATION

William Schmalfeldt has admitted that he is the author of the comment

referenced in Count IV. Schmalfeldts Answer, Docket Item 1/3, 43. He has

admitted by default that he knew the comment was false when he made it. Hoge's

Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Item 151/0, Ex. 3 at 2. Thus, he has

partially admitted to the elements the tort of defamation, and the only remaining

questions of facts and law relate to whether Mr. Hoge was damaged. Evidence and

testimony from the Defendants related to Count IV should be limited to that topic.

IV. COUNT VDEFAMATION

William Schmalfeldt has admitted by default that he is the author of the

comment referenced in Count V and that he knew it was false when he made it.

Hoge's Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Item 151/0, Ex. 3 at 3. Thus, he has

partially admitted to the elements the tort of defamation, and the only remaining

questions of facts and law relate to whether Mr. Hoge was damaged. Evidence and

testimony from the Defendants related to Count IV should be limited to that topic.

V. COUNT VIDEFAMATION

Brett Kimberlin has admitted that he is the author of the email referenced in

Count VI. Kimberlin Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Item 144/0, 12.

Thus, he has partially admitted to the elements the tort of defamation, and the only

remaining questions of facts and law relate to whether his statement was false and

3
whether Mr. Hoge was damaged. Evidence and testimony from the Defendants

related to Count VI should be limited to those topics.

VI. COUNT IXDEFAMATION

Brett Kimberlin has admitted that he is the author of the communication to

Twitter referenced in Count IX. Kimberlin Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket

Item 105/0, 12. Thus, he has partially admitted to the elements the tort of

defamation, and the only remaining questions of facts and law relate to whether his

statement was false and whether Mr. Hoge was damaged. Evidence and testimony

from the Defendants related to Count IX should be limited to those topics.

VII. COUNT XIMALICIOUS PROSECUTION

Tetyana Kimberlin admits to filing the Application for Statement of Charges

referenced in Count XI, and Brett Kimberlin and Tetyana Kimberlin both admit

that the Montgomery County States Attorney disposed of the electronic harassment

a minor charge against Mr. Hoge by entering a nolle prosequi. Kimberlin Corrected

Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Item 105/0, 1, 2. Thus, they have

admitted to the first two elements of the tort of malicious prosecution, and the only

remaining questions of facts and law relate to whether there was probable cause to

charge Mr. Hoge and whether the Kimberlins acted with malice. Evidence and

testimony from the Defendants related to Count XI should be limited to those

topics.

4
 VIII. COUNT XIIBREACH OF CONTRACT

William Schmalfeldt admits to the existence of the Settlement Agreement

from the Hoge v. Schmalfeldt, Case No. 15-CV-1683-ELH (D.Md. 2014) and that he

signed it. He also admits to having published each of Mr. Hoges copyrighted works

without permission as alleged in the Complaint. Schmalfeldts Answer, Docket

Item 1/3, 73-85. With the facts relating to Schmalfeldts breach of the contract

having been admitted, the only remaining questions of facts and law relate to the

amount of damages suffered by Mr. Hoge. Evidence and testimony from the

Defendants related to Count XII should be limited to that topic.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to grant his Motion in Limine and to

grant such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.

Date: 10 August, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
(410) 596-2854
himself@wjjhoge.com

5
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 10th day of August, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing
on the following persons:

William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 220 Whitty Drive, Myrtle

Beach, South Carolina 29579 (last known address)

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 (last known address)

Breitbart Unmasked by First Class U. S. Mail c/o William Schmalfeldt, Editor, 220
Whitty Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29579 (last known address)

Almighty Media by First Class U. S. Mail c/o Breitbart Unmasked, William

Schmalfeldt, Editor, 220 Whitty Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29579 (last
known address)

William John Joseph Hoge

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.

Date: 10 August, 2017

William John Joseph Hoge