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 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDTS MOTION TO AMEND

(DOCKET ITEM 158/0)

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and opposes Defendant Schmalfeldts

Motion to Amend (Docket Item 158/0). In opposition Mr. Hoge states as follows:

I. SCHMALFELDTS MOTION IS AN IMPROPER MOTION TO AMEND HIS DEFAULT

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

On 13 March, 2017, Mr. Hoge propounded a set of requests for admission of

facts and genuineness of documents to Defendant Schmalfeldt. Schmalfeldt never

served any response on Mr. Hoge. The Request for Admissions were served on

Schmalfeldt by mail to his then current address on file with the Court. That

address was in Wisconsin, but Schmalfeldt had moved to Iowa without informing

either the Court or Mr. Hoge of his new address. Although service to Schmalfeldts

last known address was sufficient, Mr. Hoge wanted to get the requests into

Schmalfeldts hands, so he mailed a backup copy of the Request for Admissions to

the radio station where Schmalfedlt was employed. As can be seen from the blog

post Schmalfeldt published concerning the Requests for Admissions,1 he received

1Schmalfeldt appears to admit to writing the blog post in paragraph 1 of his

Motion.
the Request for Admissions on 31 March, 2017, and wrote about them the Internet

the next day. Exhibit A at 1-3. Schmalfeldt stated in the blog post that he intended

to provide a proper response within the 30 days allowed. Id. However, he never

did. Moreover, Schmalfeldt never took any action to bring his blog post to Mr.

Hoges attention. Mr. Hoge downloaded it on 23 May, 2017over a month after

Schmalfeldts responses were due.

Because Schmalfeldt failed to respond within 30 days, every matter of which

an admission was requested is now deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 2-424(b) and

conclusively established pursuant to Rule 2-424(d).

Now, Schmalfeldt wants to amend his default responses and substitute a

redacted version of his online article.2 He has failed to offer any reason why he

should be allowed that amendment. Schmalfeldt had a copy of the Requests for

Admissions, and he published a statement saying that he would properly respond.

His failure is the sort of oversight that the Court of Appeals found should result in

the application of Rule 2-424 and a denial of a request to amend. Wilson v. John

Crane, Inc., 385 Md. 185, 867 A.2d 1077, 1094 (2005). The Court should deny the

Motion to Amend.

II. SCHMALFELDTS CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS DO NOT SUPPORT ANY REASON

TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT

Schmalfeldts Motion contains conclusory allegations against Mr. Hoge which

2Its clear that Schmalfeldt did not intend for his blog post to be his response to the
Request for Admission, because he said he would send his response later. Exhibit A
at 3.

2
are irrelevant and unsupported by any evidence. None of them provide support for

Schmalfeldts Motion to Amend. For example, Schmalfeldt complains that Mr. Hoge

did not provide proof of mailing of the Requests for Admissions and that he waited

until this late date to provide a copy of a blog post written by defendant

acknowledging the documents existence. Motion, 1. First, Schmalfeldt has

shown no evidence that he sent such a request to Mr. Hoge or that Mr. Hoge was

obliged to provide such proof. Second, Mr. Hoge never provided Schmalfeldt with a

copy of Schmalfeldts own blog post. Shortly after he downloaded a copy of the post,

Mr. Hoge remarked online that if the post disappeared as so much of Schmalfeldts

online writing have, it would be a textbook example of spoliation. Apparently,

Schmalfeldt read Mr. Hoges comment and realized his error.

Schmalfeldt falsely states that Aaron Walker is writing Hoges legal briefs.

Mr. Hoge denies that anyone other than himself has written any paper that he has

filed with this Court or sent to any defendant in the instant lawsuit, and there is no

evidence to the contrary. Id., 5.

Schmalfeldt falsely states that Mr. Hoge had his answers to the Requests for

Admission on 1 April, 2017, but offers no evidence to support his statement. Id.,

7.

Schmalfeld falsely states that some person acted on Hoges behalf to stab

two of Defendants tires within 24 hour of Hoge learning Schmalfeldts Iowa

address. Id., 7. Of course, Schmalfeldt doesnt offer any evidence that his tires

were stabbed, and the photographic evidence he previously submitted (Motion for

3
Show Cause Order, Docket Item 142/0, Ex. 6) does not show tire damage consistent

with his allegation. Schmalfeldt has shown no evidence that anyone (whether

acting at Mr. Hoge behest or otherwise) stabbed his tires.

All of those conclusory allegations are false, and even if they were true, they

do not provide any basis for allowing an amendment to the default responses to the

Requests for Admissions. The Court should deny the Motion to Amend.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to deny Defendant Schmalfeldts

Motion to Amend (Docket Item 158/0) and to grant such other relief as the Court

may find just and proper.

Date: 31 May, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

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

4
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 31st day of May, 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

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

Breitbart Unmasked by First Class U. S. Mail c/o William Schmalfeldt, Editor,

220Whitty Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29579

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

Schmalfeldt, Editor, 220Whitty Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29579

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: 31 May, 2017

William John Joseph Hoge

5
 Exhibit A
Schmalfeldt, William, Oh, Johnnie! Oh, Johnnie! Oh, Johnnie, Oh!, The Clinton Iconoclast,
https://theclintoniconoclast.com/2017/04/01/oh-johnnie-oh-johnnie-oh-johnnie-oh/ downloaded
on 23 May, 2017.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7