Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
_______________________________________ BRETT KIMBERLIN, *
* IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF Plaintiff, * * MARYLAND FOR v. *
* MONTGOMERY COUNTY * WILLIAM HOGE *
* Case No. 380966V Et al, Defendants * _______________________________________
WILLIAM HOGE’s ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
William Hoge, Defendant, through his undersigned attorney, F. Patrick Ostronic, and in
answer to interrogatories submitted by Plaintiff, generally notes:
a) The following responses and objections are based upon information now known. Mr. Hoge has not yet completed discovery or preparation for trial in this action and therefore will supplement these responses and objections to the extent required by the Maryland Rules.
b) Although these are Mr. Hoge’s answers, he has relied on his attorney for assistance in their preparation. Accordingly, some of the answers reflect the sentence structure and wording of Mr. Ostronic.
c) Without waiving any applicable objections and by way of response, Mr. Hoge provides the following responses.
Note: As required by Maryland Rules, Mr. Hoge provides his answer after restating each
interrogatory as originally submitted by Plaintiff. Where marked, Px refers to Plaintiffs
original numbering of the interrogatory, Dx refers to the actual number (cumulative to
that point) of the interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. P1, D1: Please state your full name, address and employer. If you are
not employed, when you were last employed in a full time capacity and the name of your
last full time employer, and state if you are retired or on disability, and if disabled, what
type of disability.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P1, D1: My name is William John Joseph Hoge, III. I reside at 20 Ridge Road, Westminster, Maryland 21157. I am semi-retired, working part-time doing occasional consulting work as an electrical engineer. I previously employed full-time by MEI Technologies, Inc. at Goddard Space Flight Center, Maryland. My last day with MEI was 1 July, 2013. I have just recently started working again but will object to answering that portion of the question as I was never employed by this company during the time covered by this lawsuit, and I fear answering it may subject my employer to potential harassment. I cite generally similar problems one of my co-defendants had concurrent with a previous litigation matter also involving Plaintiff.
Interrogatory No. P2, D2: Please state if you know the identity of your co-defendant
KimberlinUnmasked
Answer to Interrogatory No. P2, D2: I do not know the identity of Kimberlin Unmasked (hereon KU). Interrogatory No. P2, D3: and if you have ever spoken by phone or Skype or other
telephonic device with KimberlinUnmasked. If so, please provide the date, time and all
records you have regarding the number or name used by KimberlinUnmasked.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P2, D3: Mr. Hoge objects to this question on the grounds of Privilege. KU is a co-defendant in this action and so they share a Common Interest. “It is uniformly held that under the common interest rule, parties with shared interests in actual or pending litigation against a common adversary may share privileged information without waiving their right to assert the privilege.” Gallagher v. Attorney General, 787 A.2d 777 at 784-5, (Md. App., 2001). Accordingly, Mr. Hoge objects and refuses to respond to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks material that is privileged under the common interest rule, as attorney/client communication, attorney work product and/or undertaken or prepared in anticipation of this or related litigation. Further, Mr. Hoge objects because the Interrogatory is overly broad in its scope and vague as to the time period covered by the request. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Mr. Hoge notes the following: Prior to the filing of this lawsuit by Plaintiff, Mr. Hoge had never spoken with anyone purporting to be KU. Any conversations Mr. Hoge had with anyone purporting to be KU after the filing of this lawsuit would have been for the purpose of sharing information generally about the Plaintiff’s-initiated litigation and thus privileged under the common interest rule. Further, any such conversations could not, by definition, have been a factor in any of the allegations made by Plaintiff in his complaint. Finally, to even include post-Complaint conversations would mean that Plaintiff is entitled to an ongoing
report of contacts between co-defendants. This would obviously be burdensome and unfair to Mr. Hoge while providing nothing of relevance to Plaintiff.
Interrogatory No. P3, D4: Please state if you have ever received or sent any emails, direct
messages or other communications with KimberlinUnmasked and, if so, please provide
those communications.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P3, D4: Mr. Hoge objects to this question on the grounds of Privilege. KU is a co-defendant in this action and so they share a Common Interest. “It is uniformly held that under the common interest rule, parties with shared interests in actual or pending litigation against a common adversary may share privileged information without waiving their right to assert the privilege.” Gallagher v. Attorney General, 787 A.2d 777 at 784-5, (Md. App., 2001). Accordingly, Mr. Hoge objects and refuses to respond to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks material that is privileged under the common interest rule, as attorney/client communication, attorney work product and/or undertaken or prepared in anticipation of this or related litigation. Further, Mr. Hoge objects because the Interrogatory is vague as to the time period covered by the request and thus can be overly broad in its scope. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Mr. Hoge notes the following: Email traffic with Kimberlin Unmasked which pre-dates the Plaintiff’s filing of this lawsuit and of which Mr. Hoge still has a copy is attached as Appendix A. Mr. Hoge considers all email traffic after the date of the original complaint as outside the scope of this document request. Alternatively, Mr. Hoge withholds any email traffic with Kimberlin Unmasked subsequent to that date as Privileged as it all relates to matters involving the litigation in the instant case as well as a related litigation matter in Federal District Court, also instigated by the Plaintiff. Further, any such communications could not, by definition, have been a factor in any of the allegations made by Plaintiff in his complaint. Finally, to even include post-Complaint communications would mean that Plaintiff is entitled to an ongoing report of contacts between co-defendants. This would obviously be burdensome and unfair to Mr. Hoge while providing nothing of relevance to Plaintiff.
Interrogatory No. P4, D5: Please state if you have ever posted on any of the
KimberlinUnmasked websites or Twitter pages and if so under what name.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P4, D5: I have never submitted a specific Post to the KU websites or on the KU Twitter pages. I have made comments to the Readers’ Comments section under the name WJJHoge. Interrogatory No. P4, D6: If so, who gave you access to the account, including log in data.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P4, D6: No one - I have no special access to the account or any login data. All my comments were made in the Comments Section which was available to all.
Interrogatory No. P5, D6: Please state if you have ever used any email address associated
with KimberlinUnmasked. If so, please provide those emails and f you are not the
registrant, please state how you came to be able to use the email.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P5, D6: I have never used as my address an email address associated with Kimberlin Unmasked. Interrogatory No. P6, D7: Please state if you have ever provided any money or other
thing of value to KimberlinUnmasked, and if so list the amount or thing of value.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P6, D7: I have never knowingly given any money or thing of value to Kimberlin Unmasked. Interrogatory No. P7, D8: Please state if you are familiar with the conservative blogger
and Illinois GOP operative Lynn Thomas, who until recently lived in Streamwood, IL and
now, according to some accounts, lists her address in St. Charles, IL,
Answer to Interrogatory No. P7, D8: I have heard of a Lynn Thomas. I cannot confirm the additional details you have included in this Interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. P7, D9: and if so, have you had any contact with her, and if so, please
provides dates, times and content from those communications.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P7, D9: I do not know her and have never knowingly had contact with her.
Interrogatory No. P8, D10: Please state if you have ever used a Virtual Private Network
or any other masking program, software or app, to login to any website, email account, or
comment form, and if so please state under what name, login, when, where and how.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P8, D10: I do not use a VPN. I occasionally browse the Internet using the TOR browser. In the past, I have used anonymizers such as anonymouse.org. Neither TOR nor the anonymizers require logins.
Interrogatory No. P9, D11: Please state how much money you have raised on your blog
for legal defenses for you or anyone else over the past two years.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P9, D11: I raised a total of $3,565 for Tetyana’s Fund, which was for the benefit of Plaintiff’s wife, Tetyana Kimberlin. Interrogatory No. P9, D12: Please state how that money was spent.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P9, D12: All of the donations were refunded at her request.
Interrogatory No. P10, D13: Please state if you use any “sockpuppet” or anonymous
accounts to post on any other sites or your own site and if so please list the names of those
accounts and where and what you posted using those sockpuppet accounts.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P10, D13: . I have two pseudonymous Twitter accounts, a promotional account in name of “@JohnnyAtsign” and parody account in the name of “@PBarnumDeceased.” I post at eham.net under my amateur radio call sign “W3JJH” and post at slashdot.org as “audioengineer.”
Interrogatory No. P11, D14: Please state if you have been to a residence located at 200
Capstone Drive, #108 in Lynchburg, Virginia and if so state when and who you visited there.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P11, D14: No, I have never been to 200 Capstone Drive, #108 in Lynchburg, Virginia. Interrogatory No. P12, D15: Please state the names, emails and IP addresses of any
commenters on your HogeWash website who have stated, implied or imputed, directly or
indirectly, that Plaintiff has committed a crime. Please match the names and identifying
information to the particular comment.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P12, D15: I object to this interrogatory. First, it is overly burdensome. I do not maintain a log of all commenters at my site nor do I catalogue the
substance of each of their comments. It is beyond my expertise to decide if a commenter “implied or imputed, directly or indirectly” anything about Plaintiff’s actions. The Plaintiff is free to review the online comments at Hogewash! and apply his own judgment as to those comments. Second, this interrogatory is overly broad as Plaintiff is a notorious felon, convicted in many courts over the years. Therefore, many references to Plaintiff’s crime commissions will likely be based on well-documented history and outside the purview of relevant discovery. Third, many of the commenters at Hogewash! are anonymous and are entitled to maintain their anonymity.
Interrogatory No. P13, D16: Please state if you have received any money from any
person or organization over the past two years related to Plaintiff.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P13, D16: I have no knowledge of receiving “any money from any person or organization over the past two years related to Plaintiff.” In other words, no one has paid me or given me any money to write about the Plaintiff. Nor am I aware of any of Plaintiff’s relatives giving me money.
Interrogatory No. P14, D17: Please state if you have had any assistance with your legal
filings, and if so by whom.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P14, D17: Mr. Hoge objects and refuses to respond to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks material that is privileged under the common interest rule, as attorney/client communication, attorney work product and/or prepared in anticipation of litigation. Subject to and without waiving this objection, I am represented by counsel. His information can found below.
Interrogatory No. P15, D18: Please state if you are the person who registered
KimberlinUnmasked.Blogspot.com.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P15, D18: No, I am not.
Interrogatory No. P16, D19: If you are not the registrant, please state the registrant who
used the [email protected] email to register the KimberlinUnmasked site.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P16, D19: I do not know who the registrant is.
Interrogatory No. P17, D20: Please state who has or has had access to the
KimberlinUnmasked Blogspot account.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P17, D20: I would guess Kimberlin Unmasked, but I do not know for sure. Interrogatory No. P18, D21: Please state who has made posts on the above Blogspot
account.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P18, D21: I would guess Kimberlin Unmasked, but I do not know for sure.
Interrogatory No. P19, D22: Please state if you gave other persons permission to post on
the BlogSpot account.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P19, D22: No; I have no permission to give. It is not my account. Interrogatory No. P20, D23: Please state if you registered the @KimberlinUnmask Twitter account. Answer to Interrogatory No. P20, D23: No, I did not register that account.
Interrogatory No. P20, D24: If you did not register the Twitter account, please state who did and who has had access to the Twitter account. Answer to Interrogatory No. P20, D24: I would guess Kimberlin Unmasked, but I do not
know for sure.
Interrogatory No. P21, D25: Please state whether you registered the @BKUnmasked
Twitter account.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P21, D25: No, I did not register that account.
Interrogatory No. P21, D26: If you did not register that Twitter account, please state who
did.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P21, D26: I do not know who registered that account.
Interrogatory No. P22, D27: Please state whether you registered the
www.KimberlinUnmasked.com account.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P22, D27: No, I did not register that account.
Interrogatory No. P22, D28: If you did not, please state who did and what other people
have access to that account and if so who.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P22, D28: I do not know “who did and what other people have access to that account.” Interrogatory No. P23, D29: Please state whether you have received any remuneration
for creating or using the Blogspot, .com or Twitter accounts above. If so, please state the
amounts and from whom.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P23, D29: I have received no “remuneration for creating or using the Blogspot.com or Twitter accounts above.”
Interrogatory No. P24, D30: Please state the email or emails associated with the
registration of the four accounts above.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P24, D30: I do not know “the email or emails associated with the registration of the four accounts above.”
Interrogatory No. P25, D31: Please include copies of all communications to and from
those persons who have had access to the four accounts above, if you know.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P25, D31: I do not know, so no copies attached.
Interrogatory No. P26, D32: Please state any other names you have used to post on the
Internet, real or anonymous, over the past five years.
Answer to Interrogatory No. P26, D32: . I object to this interrogatory as it is overly broad, covering a time period well in excess of the applicable time period covered in Plaintiff’s complaint. Subject to and without waiving this objection, I have used the following identities on the Internet since 2009: William Hoge, William.J.Hoge, W. J. J. Hoge, WJJ Hoge, wjjhoge, John Hoge, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], audioengineer, w3jjh, W3JJH, [email protected], @JohnnyAtsign, @wjjhoge, @hogewash, @PBarnumDeceased, Phineas T. Barnum
From: WJJ Hoge [email protected]: If BS' AR15 is real ...
Date: 7 April, 2013 at 1546To: [email protected]
… then the 30 round magazine may be real.
§ 4-305. Detachable magazines -- Prohibited
(a) Scope of section. -- This section does not apply to a .22 caliber rifle with a tubular magazine.
(b) Prohibited. -- A person may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 20 rounds of ammunition for a firearm.
If BS acquired the magazine before 1994 or if he physically left the state, acquired the magazine, and brought it into Maryland himself, that isn't prohibited. OTOH, if someone else brought the magazine into the state after 1994 and BS subsequently acquired it by any means, then the following may apply.
§ 4-306. Penalties
(a) In general. -- A person who violates this subtitle is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $ 5,000 or both.
