William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,
v.
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY,

MARYLAND
Case No. 06-C-16-070789

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDTS REQUEST TO APPEAR

BY TELEPHONE
COMES NOW, Plaintiff William John Joseph Hoge and opposes Defendant
Schmalfeldts Request to Appear by Telephone (Docket Item 70/0) at the 27
September, 2016, motions hearing in the above captioned matter. In opposition Mr.
Hoge states as follows:
ALLOWING SCHMALFELDT TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL
TO MR. HOGE
Mr. Hoge objects to Schmalfeldts being allowed to appear by telephone
during the 27 September, 2016, motions hearing because that would be prejudicial
to Mr. Hoges interests.
First, with an audio-only connection the Court has no means of assuring that
the person arguing for Schmalfeldts motions would be William Schmalfeldt.
Second, given the nature of the facts alleged in Schmalfeldts pending
motions and the unusual legal theories advanced in support of them, Mr. Hoge
believes that Schmalfeldts demeanor and credibility are likely to be critical to the
Courts assessment of Schmalfeldt and his arguments.

Third, while some courts in Maryland allow counsel or a pro se party to

appear by telephone at a scheduling or pretrial hearing, there is nothing in the
Maryland Rules that allows for a telephonic appearance by counsel or a pro se party
at a motions hearing. Indeed, Rule 2-513 deals with allowing testimony to be taken
telephonically. It makes no allows for oral argument by telephone. Moreover, the
Rule allows for a witness to be at a remote location. It clearly presumes that
counsel or the pro se party will be present in court.
Therefore, the Court should deny Schmalfeldts Request to Appear by
Telephone.
SCHMALFELDTS REQUEST IS IMPROPER
Schmalfeldt has made his request in the form of a letter to the Clerk rather
than as a motion. While the Court has docketed the letter as a motion, the filing is
still defective in other ways. It fails to provide the details required by Rule
2-513(d), it is untimely, and it fails to show that there is good cause to allow an
appearance by telephone.
First, Schmalfeldts letter fails to state the following information required by
Rule 2-513:
1. The location from which he will argue/testify. 2-513(d)(4).
Schmalfeldts letterhead does contain an address and telephone
number, but the letter does not state that his proposed testimony
would occur at that address using that telephone number.
2. Whether there will be any other individual present in the
2

room with Schmalfeldt while his is arguing/testifying, and, if so, the

reason for that persons presence and that persons name.
2-513(d)(5).
3. Whether Schmalfeldt will be speaking via a wired handset,
wireless handset connected to a landline, or a speaker phone.
2-513(d)(6).
Second, Rule 2-513 states that a motion to allow testimony via telephone
shall be filed at least 30 days before the trial or hearing at which the testimony is
to be offered. Rule 2-513(c). Schmalfeldts letter is dated 8/30/2016. 30 August is
less than 30 days before 27 September, and Schmalfeldt has done nothing to show
that there is good cause for the Court to allow for a late filing.
Third, Schmalfeldt has failed to show that there is good cause to allow for a
telephonic appearance at all. While Schmalfeldt claims to be disabled by
Parkinsons disease in his unsworn letter, he has provided no evidence, such a
physicians statement, concerning an inability to travel. According to information
posted on a website operated by Schmalfeldt, he has recently traveled by train from
Milwaukee to Chicago.1 Schmalfeldt may not want to come to Maryland to appear

Schmalfeldt has filed a lawsuit in the U. S. District Court for the District of
Illinois, Schmalfeldt v. Grady, et al., Case No. 16-CV-7150 (N.D.Il. 2016). He has
been granted in forma pauperis status, and that court has recruited a pro bono
lawyer to assist him. Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a blog post published
by Schmalfeldt describing his trip to Chicago to meet with his lawyer in the Grady
case. If he can travel for a meeting about a case in which he is the plaintiff, he can
travel for a hearing in a case in which he is a defendant.
3

before this Court, but he has offered no evidence of a true inability to make the
journeyand his recent travels suggest that he is not so infirm.
Thus, because Schmalfeldts letter lacks information required by Rule 2-513,
is untimely, and fails to establish good cause, the Court should deny his request to
appear by telephone during the 27 September, 2016, hearing.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks this Court to deny Schmalfeldts Request to
Appear by Telephone and to grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
Date: 9 September, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 9th day of September, 2016, I served copies of the
foregoing on the following persons:
William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 3209 S. Lake Drive, Apt. 108,
St. Francis, Wisconsin 53235 (last known address)
William Ferguson by First Class U. S. Mail to 10808 Schroeder Road, Live Oak,
California 95953 (last known address)
Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817 (last known address)
Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817 (last known address)
Almighty Media by First Class U. S. Mail to 20079 Stone Oak Parkway, San
Antonio, Texas 78258 (last known address)
Breitbart Unmasked by First Class U. S. Mail to 20079 Stone Oak Parkway, San
Antonio, Texas 78258 (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: 9 September, 2016
William John Joseph Hoge

Exhibit A
Schmalfeldt, William, A Room With A View, originally viewed at http://
youngestoldman.com/2016/08/23/room-with-a-view/ on 24 August, 2016; downloaded
from http://archie.is/KcgIU/ on 31 August, 2016.
Note: Schmalfeldt removed the website from the Internet where the post was
originally published on or about 27 August, 2016. However, this post had been
backed up at the archive.is website.
Exhibit A has been redacted in this version. Although it is part of court document, I intend
to abide by the spirit of the Hoge v. Schmalfeldt Settlement Agreement and will refrain from
publishing a copy of Schmalfeldts blog post online.