You are on page 1of 18

BRETT KIMBERLIN,

Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB,

et al.,

Defendants
DEFENDANT HOGES MOTION FOR AMENDED REPORT OF STATUS OF SERVICE

COMES NOW Defendant William Hoge and hereby moves that this Court require
Plaintiff to file an amended version of Plaintiffs Status Report Re Service of Complaint in
order to address apparent discrepancies in Plaintiffs report. In support of this motion Mr.
Hoge states the following:
SUMMARY
1. Defendant Hoge brings this motion because it appears that Plaintiff may be
attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court by including forged exhibits
demonstrating service and misstating information in his report on the status of service to
defendants. Service of process is not a merely technical issue, and, if it has not been
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GREENBELT DIVISION
Case No. 13-CV-03059-PWG
properly completed, there is an increased likelihood that responses from the various
defendants will arrive at the Court over an extended period. Defendant Hoge has
standing to bring this matter to the Courts attention because of its possible influence on a
speedy conclusion of the instant lawsuit.
2. While it might seem fantastic that Plaintiff would attempt to present forged
evidence of service, it would be consistent with his prior and recent conduct. Plaintiff
holds the distinction of being one of the few people convicted of the offense of illegal use of
the Seal of the President of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 713. That
conviction was in connection with forgery of documents and Department of Defense
insignia for the purpose of convincing others that he was employed by U.S. Government as
a cover for his drug smuggling operations. As noted in U.S. v. Kimberlin
1
,
FBI Agent Lucas ... had been called to a printing establishment. He
observed defendant [Brett Kimberlin] wearing clothing with badges and
insignia. The insignia was identical to that of the Security Police of the
Defense Department. Defendant had in hand a facsimile of the
Presidential Seal and other documents, one or more of which he
attempted to chew up.
Meanwhile, on 13 January, 2014, Plaintiff was caught submitting an altered Certified
Mail green card in an exhibit for a motion for alternate service in a parallel lawsuit in a
Maryland state court
2
which Plaintiff admits is related to the instant suit (details in
2
1
805 F.2d 210, 228 (7th Cir. 1986).
2
Defendants Walker, McCain, Akbar, Kimberlin Unmasked, and Hoge are also
codefendants in Maryland case styled Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co.,
Case No. 380966V.
paragraph 4 below). Some of the copies submitted in Exhibit E of Plaintiffs report may
have been altered, specifically, items purporting to relate to service on Defendants McCain
and Akbar.
QUESTIONABLE SERVICE ON ROBERT STACY MCCAIN
3. Page 3 of Plaintiffs Exhibit E is offered to the Court as the returned envelope
and Certified Mail green card for an attempted service on Robert Stacy McCain. See
Exhibit A. The document does not appear to be genuine. The envelope shows only $1.25
in postage, but, according to information posted at http://www.usps.com, the USPS
charges for Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, totaled $5.65 during 2013. There is
insufficient postage paid for a Certified Mail green card to be associated with that
envelope. On information and belief, the USPS returns such pieces of mail to the sender
marked as having insufficient postage, and Plaintiffs document bears no such marking.
Therefore, Plaintiffs document should not exist. Plaintiff should be required to account
for these discrepancies.
QUESTIONABLE SERVICE ON ALI AKBAR
3. Page 2 of Plaintiffs Exhibit E is purported to be the returned envelope and green
3
card for an attempted service on Ali Akbar. The green card shown does not have the
Restricted Delivery Yes box checked. See Exhibit B. This is consistent with one
purported copy of the same envelope and green card filed in a parallel Maryland state suit
(Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co., Case No. 380966V.) in a motion for alternate service for Defendant
Akbar. (id,. Docket No. 38.) However, Plaintiff also filed a motion for sanctions against
Akbars counsel (id., Docket No. 60.) which included an exhibit purporting to show exactly
the same green card with the Restricted Delivery Yes box checked where it had not been
before. See Exhibit C. On 13 January, 2013, Judge Burrell denied Plaintiffs motion for
alternate service in the Maryland lawsuit when she was made aware of the difference
between the two exhibits. She held that Plaintiff had not served Defendant Akbar as
required under Md. Rule 2-121(a). This necessarily means that she did not believe that
the document purporting to demonstrate service was authentic. These discrepancies, as
well as Judge Burrells findings, call into question the authenticity of the green card
shown on page two of Plaintiffs Exhibit E. Indeed, if the Plaintiff has forged any
documents, the authenticity of all of the Plaintiffs documentation should be questioned.
OTHER DEFECTIVE SERVICE
5. Plaintiff states that he mailed formal service of process on 3 January, 2014.
Plaintiffs Exhibit B shows 14 USPS mailing receipts. Mail service in the instant lawsuit
4
allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) would be either by rules applicable in Maryland or by the
rules of the other state or territory where the defendant is served. Assuming that Plaintiff
would choose the rule more favorable to himself, service on the defendants in California
3
,
Colorado
4
, the District of Columbia
5
, Illinois
6
, Virginia
7
, and West Virginia
8
would, at
minimum, have to comply with Md. Rule 2-121(a) because those other jurisdictions rules
are either equivalent or more strict. Md. Rule 2-121(a) requires that mail service be via
Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, Restricted Delivery. Given that none of the
mailing receipts listed in the Plaintiffs Exhibit B show that the fee for Restricted Delivery
was paid, service to defendants in all those states should be considered defective.
6. On information and belief, Plaintiff attempted service on the following defendant
in California: Breitbart.com; in Colorado: Michelle Malkin and Twitchy; in the District of
Columbia: Red State; in Virginia: Ali Akbar and National Bloggers Club; and in West
Virginia: Robert Stacy McCain. Plaintiffs mailings to persons in Camarillo, California,
and Saint Charles, Illinois, may have been attempts to serve Defendants Ace of Spades or
Kimberlin Unmasked. Since the attempted service on each of these nine defendants was
5
3
Cal. Code Civ. P. 415.10, et seq.
4
Colo. R. Civ. P. 4.
5
D.C. R. Civ. P. 4.
6
735 ILCS 5/2-203.
7
Va. Code 8.01-296.
8
W. Va. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1)(E).
defective for the reason described in paragraph 5 above, Plaintiff should be required to
amend his report to correct his errors.
POSSIBLY COMPLETED SERVICE
7. Plaintiff may have met the requirements for service in Georgia
9
, New York
10
,
and Texas
11
in his service of Defendants Glen Beck, Erick Erickson, James OKeefe,
Mercury Radio Arts, Simon & Schuster, Lee Stranahan, and The Blaze. Thus, service on
those defendants may have been completed. Plaintiff should be required to provide proper
proof of service per Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l).
8. Plaintiff says that he has been in communication with counsel for John Patrick
Frey and Mandy Nagy. However, he has not shown any evidence of such communication,
and neither party has filed any motion or answer with the Court. Since Plaintiff saying
that he has effectively served Frey and Nagy, he should provide documentation of their
acceptance or waiver of service.
ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS IN THE REPORT
6
9
Ga. Code 9-11-4(d)(3)(B).
10
N.Y. Civ. Law 2103.
11
Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(a)(2)
9. The Courts Letter Order dated December 30, 2013, requires that Plaintiffs
report should detail for each defendant
i) Whether that Defendant has been served;
ii) If so, the date and method of service; and
iii) If not, the efforts that Plaintiff has undertaken to serve said
Defendant.
At no point in the report is there any statement of when service was completed on each
defendant who Plaintiff asserts was served. Further, Plaintiff seems to confuse mailing
waiver notices with actual service of process. Other than stating that he asked the
counsel for Kimberlin Unmasked in another matter to accept service for that defendant,
Plaintiff has not described any actions undertaken to serve the anonymous defendants Ace
of Spades and Kimberlin Unmasked or the other defendants whose whereabouts are
unknown to him.
10. In paragraph 1 of his report Plaintiff states that he mailed service waivers to 21
of the defendants, all except for Kimberlin Unmasked, on 22 October, 2013. However,
Plaintiffs Exhibit A shows receipts for 24 piece of mail. Three pieces of mail were sent to
Rockville and Kensington, Maryland, and Salt Lake City, Utah. On information and
belief, there are no defendants to be found in those locations, nor is any counsel in the
instant lawsuit for any defendant located in those cities.
11. In paragraph 4 of his report Plaintiff provides an error-filled Service Chart.
which is not consistent with his own documentation. On information and belief, here is a
corrected version based on the information and exhibits contained in Plaintiffs report.
7
Defendant Waiver Sent Summons Sent Counsel Comment
National Bloggers Club Wrong Address? Wrong Address? Unknown Not Served
Ali Akbar Wrong Address? Wrong Address? Unknown Not Served
Patrick Frey Received Not Sent Represented Not Served
Erick Erickson Sent Sent Unknown Possibly Served
Michelle Malkin Sent Defective Unknown Not Served
Glen Beck Sent Sent Unknown Possibly Served
Aaron Walker Sent Waived Pro Se Service Waived
William Hoge Sent Waived Pro Se Service Waived
Lee Stranahan Sent Sent Pro Se Possibly Served
Robert Stacy McCain Wrong Address Defective Unknown Not Served
James OKeefe Sent Sent Unknown Possibly Served
Mandy Nagy Sent Not Sent Represented Not Served
Breitbart.com Sent Defective Unknown Not Served
DB Capitol Strategies Sent Waived Represented Service Waived
Twitchy Sent Defective Unknown Not Served
The Franklin Center Sent Waived Represented Service Waived
Simon & Schuster Sent Sent Represented Possibly Served
Kimberlin Unmasked Not Sent Not Specied Unknown Not Served
Mercury Radio Arts Sent Sent Unknown Possibly Served
The Blaze Sent Sent Unknown Possibly Served
Ace of Spades Wrong Address? Not Specied Unknown Not Served
Red State Sent Defective Unknown Not Served
The information in Plaintiffs own report shows that half of the defendants have not been
properly served, seven may have been served, and four have waived service.
8
12. In paragraph 5 of his report Plaintiff alleges that Robert Stacy McCain is
actively avoiding service of process. Defendant Hoge saw Defendant McCain in the same
courtroom as Plaintiff during hearings in the parallel Maryland lawsuit on 27 November,
2013, and on 13 January, 2014. On both occasions, Plaintiff was aware of Mr. McCains
presence and could have arranged to have him personally served by a deputy sheriff or
other third party, but he failed to do so. Mr. McCain does not appear to be evading
service.
13. In paragraph 5 of his report Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Ace of Spades, Ali
Akbar, Kimberlin Unmasked, and National Bloggers Club are actively evading service by
refusing to accept delivery of Certified Mail. Plaintiff has not shown that he knows the
proper mailing addresses for those defendants who he chose to sue without knowledge of
their whereabouts. Since it is likely that Plaintiff is mailing service to the wrong
addresses, Plaintiff should be required to show what steps he has taken and what steps he
plans to take to locate each of those defendants.
14. In paragraph 8 of his report Plaintiff writes of providing copies of the suit to
Defendants Kimberlin Unmasked and Ali Akbar via email on 2 January, 2014. He states
in his certificate of service that he served the status report on those defendants by email
as well. As the Court noted in its Letter Order dated January 7, 2014, Fed. R. Civ. P.
5(b)(2) requires physical service unless a party consents to electronic or other service in
writing (emphasis in original). Plaintiff should be required to prove that he received such
9
Exhibit A
Copy of page 3 of Plaintiffs Exhibit E
13
14
/
'
:
:
0
'\
P
l
e
8
t
>
t
l
'"
R
e
c
y
C
f
e
:
p
a
c
k
a
g
i
n
g
I
s
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
f
t
h
o
U
.
S
.
P
u
:
.
t
,
J
I
.
v
i
c
e
@
a
n
d
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
s
o
l
e
l
y
f
o
r
u
s
c
i
o
s
e
n
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
M
a
J
1

>
s
h
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
M
i
s
u
s
e
m
a
y
b
e
a
v
l
o
/
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
o
d
o
r
a
l
l
a
w
.
T
h
i
s
p
a
c
k
a
g
i
n
g
i
s
n
o
t
f
o
r
r
o
s
a
/
a
.
E
P
1
4
F
~
P
.
P
P
(
'
)
u
.
s
.
P
o
s
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
;
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
2
:
A
l
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
o
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

,
1
'
'~
.
:
I
P
L
E
A
S
E
P
R
E
S
S
F
I
R
M
L
Y
U
.
S
.
P
O
S
T
A
G
E
P
A
l
O
L
H
U
I
N
J
U
H
N
.
M
U
2
0
8
1
8
N
i
l
V
I
I
I
.
,
.
~
A
M
O
U
N
T
1
1
1
1
1
1
/
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
/
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
"
"
"
1
1
1
1
1
I
n
n
r
.
'
-
.
~
V
M
"
.
(
J
J
"
"
f
J
P
O
J
r
.
t
l
1
6
"
I
I
'C
"
P
L
E
A
S
E
I
7
0
1
3
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
3
5
6
8
0
2
.
U
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
P
S
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
5
0
1
4
E
P
1
4
F
-
P
-
P
P
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
2
q
}
U
,
S
.
P
o
s
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
l
c
t
J
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
p
i
c
k
u
p
r
i
g
h
t
1
r
o
m
y
o
u
r
l
I
o
m
o
D
r
o
f
f
i
c
e
a
t
u
s
p
s
.
c
o
m
/
p
i
c
k
u
p
.

P
n
"
n
t
p
o
s
t
~
l
g
e
o
,
,
"
n
o
C
a
s
e

8
:
l
3
-
c
v
-
0
3
0
5
9
-
P
W
G



D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

2
7
-
5



F
i
l
e
d

0
l
/
0
9
/
l
4



P
a
g
e

3

o
f

5
Exhibit B
Copy of page 2 of Plaintiffs Exhibit E
15
16
:
,
:
c
"
i
i
t
r
i
'
F
i
'
E
D
"
M
A
i
l
,
:
.
I
I
:
.
I
'H
"
'
I
l
f
'
/
"
.
.
,
I
,
I
I
N
''''"
M
il
7
(
H
I
r
"
1
1
(
"
r
I
i
'
.
,
U
f
l
M
O
U
N
I
$
1
1
.
2
5
.
I
J
n
O
!
I
I
I
O
I
l
.
;
l
r
'
~
'
\
M
E
_
1
S
T
N
O
l
2
N
D
N
~
R
E
T
U
R
N
i
i
i
i
i
:
:
!
!
!
!
!
f
!
!
U
N
I
T
E
D
S
T
J
.
I
I
l
i
i
f
f
I
P
O
S
T
J
.
l
L
S
E
R
'
(
V
I
S
I
T
U
S
A
T
U
S
P
S
.
C
O
M
e
O
R
D
E
R
F
R
E
E
S
U
P
P
L
I
E
S
O
N
L
I
N
E
,
y
2
0
1
3
9
.
5
D
O
D
O
5
2
0
3
9
8
7
]
,
I
I
7
0
1
3

.
1
D
O
t
l
.
(
x
w
P
R
E
S
S
F
I
R
M
L
Y
T
O
"
\
C
a
s
e

8
:
l
3
-
c
v
-
0
3
0
5
9
-
P
W
G



D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

2
7
-
5



F
i
l
e
d

0
l
/
0
9
/
l
4



P
a
g
e

2

o
f

5
Exhibit C
Copy of the green card and envelope included in Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co., Case No. 380966V,
Docket No. 60, Exhibit F.
Note: The distorted image is as provided in the copy served on Defendant Hoges counsel
in that lawsuit.
17
18

You might also like