IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY MARYLAND WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE, IIL Plaintiff ve Case No. 06-C-16-070789 BRETT KIMBERLIN, et al., Defendants DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDT’S SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF WJJ HOGE’S REQUEST FOR A SHOW CAUSE ORDER FOR CONTEMPT AND NOT GUILTY PLEA 1. NOW COMES pro se defendant William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., (DEFENDANT) with this Answer to Plaintiff WIJ Hoge’s Request for a Show Cause Order for Contempt and defendant's plea of Not Guilty. FACTS 2. As the Court has not yet, as of this date, docketed Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Request for a Show Cause Order for Contempt, and as Plaintiff has taken to publicly whining on his blog that he all of a sudden finds e-mail service unacceptable when it was perfectly acceptable earlier in this woebegone case until Plaintiff decided it wasn’t, and as Defendant has until June 14 by Order of the Court to file an Answer to Plaintiff's latest attempt to_harass this defendant, Schmalfeldt files this supplementary answer. 3. Once again, Plaintiff is asking this court to punish Defendant for a law that does not exist. He cites Rule 16-208(c)(2) as his basis for seeking a contempt order against plaintiff for “surreptitiously” making an audio recording of Plaintiff's most recent failed attempt to find this Defendant in Contempt of Court. Here is Rule 16-208(c)(2) in its entirety: 2) An individual who willfully violates this Rule or any reasonable limitation imposed by the local administrative judge or the presiding judge may be found incontempt of court and sanctioned in accordance with the Rules in Title 15, Chapter 200. 4, This Plaintiff uses the punishment citation in this Rule to ask the court to punish Defendant for breaking a Rule that Plaintiff does not mention anywhere in his Request. 5. Plaintiff is correct that during the May 5 hearing Defendant set up his iPhone to tape his own responses to the questions asked in the hearing, knowing Plaintiff to be a frequent liar when reporting the result of such hearings to his readership. At the time of the hearing, Defendant was in Florence, South Carolina ~ 452 miles away from Westminster, Md, Plaintiff does not have the financial wherewithal to pay for a transcript or recording of this or any other hearing, Plaintiff recorded only his own face and voice. While it is true that the honorable judge and the Plaintiff can be heard on the recording, one would have to amplify the sound to hear them clearly. At no time does Defendant's recording show the courtroom, the judge, Mr. Hoge, or any other image as seen by the Defendant on Skype. 6. Plaintiff cites Rule 16-208 (b)(2)(E)(i) which reads: (@ Except with the express permission of the presiding judge or as otherwise permitted by this Rule, Rules 16-502, 16-503, 16-504, or 16-603, all electronic devices inside a courtroom shall remain off and no electronic device may be used to receive, transmit, or record sound, visual images, data, or other information. ___As Defendant was not in a courtroom, but in a hotel room 452 miles away from the Carroll County Circuit Court House, this Rule does not apply. Even if it did apply, the Skype employed by the Court is an electronic device that was inside a courtroom and it was used to receive, transmit, (and) record sound, visual images, data, (and) other information. Mr. Hoge has not objected to the Court’s seeming violation of the same Rule he claims Defendant violated. 7. Inhis request, Hoge claims “...that motel room was a extension of Courtroom 10for the duration of his Skype connection to the hearing.” Hoge cites no law or precedent for making this statement, Defendant has scoured Maryland Rules to the best of his ability as a layman to find anything that would lend support to Hoge’s supposition. As Hoge gets direct support and aid from a Virginia attomey, not licensed to practice in Maryland, if there were such a statute, rule, law, it would have been included in Mr. Hoge’s request. 8, Hoge once again does the Judge’s job for him by declaring Defendant in violation of non-extant law, South Carolina is, indeed, a “one party” consent state. Hoge has not established that one needs to act “within the color of law” to exercise his rights in a “one party” consent state to record a conversation. Again, there is nothing in Rule 16-208 that would make Defendant's recording of his own face and comments, with barely audible commentary from the courtroom, illegal. Indeed, if the audio from the courtroom were loud and clear, there would be nothing in the Rules cited by Hoge that would make Defendant's actions illegal. Plaintiff claims Schmalfeldt violated 18 USC § 2511, which deals with the interception of communications. To put it in football terms, the court threw a forward pass 452 miles where it was received by Schmalfeldt. A complete pass. No interception. 10, As Schmalfeldt has said all along, every move Hoge has made in this case seems to be designed with one purpose in mind... to cause Schmalfeldt the expense and inconvenience ___of traveling to Westminster for no other purpose than to satisfy Hoge’s ego. Defendant no longer has a car. If this court requires Defendant to travel to Maryland for this hearing, it will require the use of public transportation as well as tickets for two people as Defendant will require the accompaniment of his fiancé to act as his caretaker due to his Parkinson’s disease. 11, There was nothing surreptitious about Schmalfeldt’s recording of his face and voice. The word “surreptitious” has a negative context; the actions of one performed in secret,designed to deceive or fool another person. 12. When this honorable court ruled that Schmalfeldt could appear via Skype for the May 5 hearing, several conditions were set: a, Defendant had the required equipment. b. He sat facing the web camera for the entire hearing. c ‘The lighting, web camera, microphone, etc. were all up to the task. d. Defendant was alone in the room. e. Defendant took the oath, but was not asked whether or not anyone else ‘was in the room. ‘The Defendant had no documents to introduce. g. The costs of the Skype appearance were borne by the Defendant. 13. Nowhere in these instructions, nowhere in the Maryland Rules, nowhere in all the other documents that Defendant carefully searched before the hearing does the defendant find a ingle word declaring the illegality of recording one’s face and voice with the barely audible voices from the courthouse. 14, Itis Defendant's position that the Plaintiff is embarrassed by his performance in the May 5 hearing and is — once again — abusing this court and the Judge’s time and patience to ___ salve his bruised ego. His stature on his blog is measured by his need to be proven correct in all matters. Hence the oft-used saying in his blog, “Everything is Proceeding As | Have Foreseen.” CONCLUSION WHEREFORE Plaintiff Hoge has not demonstrated that Defendant Schmalfeldt has shown contempt for this court; WHEREFORE Plaintiff Hoge is once again abusing this court for reasons that havenothing to do with a search for justice but are instead yet another opportunity to cause physical pain to defendant and to financially bleed defendant dry; WHEREFORE Defendant Schmalfeldt hereby pleads NOT GUILTY to the accusation of contempt of court; This Defendant asks the court to cancel the June 28 hearing, to spare the defendant the time, pain and expense of making a 900-mile round trip just to satisfy Plaintiff's ego, or ~ in the alternative - allow Defendant to appear by Skype, or — in the alternative — order Plaintiff to reimburse Defendant for the cost of transportation, lodging, meals and other expenses incurred during the travel of Defendant and his caretaker, in cash, on the spot when Defendant is acquitted of this charge. Respectfully submitted f Dated this 31st Day of May, 2017 fe WT William M. Schmalieidt, Sr Myrtle Beach, SC 29579 (563) 503-8730 broadwaybill9476@outlook.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~~ 1 Certify that on the 31stday of May 2016, I served copies of the above on the following persons. William John Joseph Hoge by FIRST CLASS MAIL, and Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin, by e-mail. NAVA_—§— William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., Pro SeAFFIDAVIT 1, William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., 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: May 31, 2017 hc William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr. Pro Se