Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND

WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE III

)
)
Pro Se Petitioner,
)
) Case No. 06C14067023
v.
)
)
WILLIAM M. SCHMALFELDT
)
)
Pro Se Respondent.
)
__________________________________ )
MOTION TO CANCEL THE SHOW CAUSE HEARING
SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 30, 2015 FOR INSUFFICIENT
LEGAL BASIS IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE
Now comes Respondent William M. Schmalfeldt (SCHMALFELDT)
with this Motion to Dismiss the Show Cause Hearing docketed for January
30, 2015 as lacking sufficient legal basis in form and substance
ARGUMENT
I.
HOGE HAS FILLED OUT THE INCORRECT FORM IN HIS
PETITION FOR CONTEMPT.
As HOGE and SCHMALFELDT do not have a domestic relationship,
HOGE may not successfully file a contempt petition for a crime
SCHMALFELDT could not have possibly committed.
The form HOGE used to file his contempt petition is Form CCDC/DV 7, which is a Petition for Contempt for Violating a Protective Order,

1!

not CC-DC-PO-007 which is the correct form for a Petition for Contempt for
Violating a Peace Order.
As Protective Orders and Peace Orders are two separate and distinct
actions under Maryland law, HOGE cannot seek a contempt hearing against
SCHMALFELDT using the incorrect form, any more than he can charge
SCHMALFELDT with failure to pay child support.
II. THE PROPER METHOD TO BRING CHARGES AGAINST
SCHMALFELDT FOR THE ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACT OF
VIOLATING THE COURTS ORDER IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED.
HOGE is certainly no stranger to the Carroll County Court
Commissioners office. He is well-known in the halls of the Carroll County
Courthouse and the Carroll County States Attorneys Office for his
previous 367 attempts to hold SCHMALFELDT criminally liable for his
alleged activities.
SCHMALFELDT maintains HOGE has adopted his improperly filed
Show Cause tactic as an end run around the County Commissioner and
States Attorney, both of which are, no doubt, tired of his constant and
uniformly dismissed charges against SCHMALFELDT.
The Penalties portion of the Maryland Peace Order Statutes make
no mention of contempt of court. If HOGE truly believes
SCHMALFELDT violated the no contact portion of the instant Peace

2!

Order, he should follow the prescribed procedure and attempt to secure a


charge of failure to comply with a peace order under MD. COURTS AND
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, TITLE 15 3-1508. Failure to comply.
(a) An individual who fails to comply with the relief granted in an
Interim peace order under 3-1503.1 of this subtitle, a temporary
peace order under 3-1504(a)(2) of this subtitle, or a final peace
order under 3-1505(d)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this subtitle is
guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to:
(1) For a first offense, a fine not exceeding $1,000 or
imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or both; and
(2) For a second or subsequent offense, a fine not exceeding $2,500
or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or both.
III. BY ALLOWING HOGES PETITION FOR A SHOW CAUSE
HEARING IN THIS MATTER, THE COURT IS ALLOWING HOGE
TO MAKE AN END RUN AROUND THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MARYLAND PEACE ORDER STATUTE.
As mentioned previously, although the peace order form presented to
a person found to be deserving of such an order states, Violation of this
Peace Order may be a crime or contempt of court or both, and could result in
imprisonment or fine or both, the legislature made no provision in the
Penalties portion of the Peace Order statute for contempt of court findings.
(See Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings 3-1508).

3!

HOGE is within his rights to do what he has done nearly 400 times
since 2013, and that is seek a misdemeanor charge against SCHMALFELDT
for failure to comply with a peace order.
HOGEs attempt to make this end run around a Court
Commissioner and States Attorney where he has worn out his welcome is a
cynical attempt to further deny SCHMALFELDT his constitutional due
process.
If the case is in a circuit court and there is the prospect of any
imprisonment, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial, and that
right can be waived only in conformance with Maryland Rule 4246. (Citations omitted). (Emphasis included) Bryant v. Howard
County Dept. of Social Services ex rel. Costley, 387 Md. 30, 33, 874
A.2d 457, 458 (2005)
IV. HOGES REQUEST FOR RELIEF IS VAGUE AND
IMPOSSIBLE TO GRANT
Assuming HOGE re-files his contempt petition and uses the correct
form this time, according to Maryland Rule 15-202(a), since the alleged
contempt occurred outside of the presence of the court, the only contempt
that applies here is constructive contempt. As this is being marked as a
civil case, we are talking about constructive civil contempt. In such a case,
the best outcome HOGE could hope for would be a finding that
SCHMALFELDT was in constructive civil contempt of the Peace Order.
Maryland Rule 15-207(d)(2) states, In the case of a civil contempt, the
!

4!

order shall specify how the contempt may be purged. HOGE alleges that
SCHMALFELDT violated the no contact term of the Peace Order by
willfully posting a link to HOGEs blog, knowing that this would cause
WordPress to automatically send an e-mail to HOGEs e-mail account as
WordPress is set by default to do. In as much as this is an indirect contempt
charge labeled on the notice of the Show Cause hearing as Civil in nature,
the granting of compensatory damages is impossible, as there is no way for
HOGE to demonstrate damages done to him by his own willful approval of
the posting of the ping back e-mail on his blog. The only course available
under a civil contempt ruling would be a finding of coercive civil
contempt in which SCHMALFELDT could be imprisoned or fined until he
is in compliance with the terms of the Peace Order. As SCHMALFELDT is
unable to travel back in time to remove the link from a blog that no longer
exists, and he cannot remove the comment that HOGE willingly posted in
his comment section as a result of the e-mail WordPress automatically sent
to him, there is no way for SCHMALFELDT to purge the contempt.
Indirect contempt usually consists of disobedience to a court
order outside the courts presence, and can be either civil or
criminal. Indirect civil contempt is further divided into two
categories, remedial and coercive. Remedial civil contempt serves
to compensate plaintiffs for damages suffered because of the
defendants disobedience of a court order. Remedial civil
contempt is merely another form of compensatory damages, and
plaintiffs must ordinarily prove their pecuniary loss as they would
!

5!

in any legal action for damages. Coercive civil contempt also


exists primarily for the benefit of the plaintiff. It is designed to
force a reluctant defendant to comply with a court order. Oxford
Companion to American Law, edited by Kermit L. Hall and David S.
Clark, pp. 157-8
V.
SINCE PURGING THE CONTEMPT IN THIS CASE IS
IMPOSSIBLE, HOGE SHOULD FOLLOW THE STANDARD
PROCEDURE FOR FILING A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND THIS
COURT SHOULD CANCEL THE SHOW CAUSE HEARING FOR
INSUFFICIENT LEGAL BASIS IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE.
Since SCHMALFELDT is being accused of an action that cannot be
undone, there is no way he can purge the alleged contempt of court.
Therefore, if HOGE feels that an inadvertent and miniscule alleged violation
of his Peace Order is worth pursuing in court, he should secure a criminal
charge against SCHMALFELDT and follow the standard procedure for
prosecuting such a case.
Coercive civil contempt is used to secure compliance with an
order or judgment made for the benefit of the adverse party in a
civil action. Sanctions are imposed only when a party still able to
obey refuses or fails to perform an affirmative act as ordered by
the court, or persists in violating a continuous negative order.
(Emphasis added) Standards of Punishment in Contempt Cases,
Thomas C. Ackerman, Jr. , California Law Review, Vol. 39, Issue 4,
December 1951, p. 553.
WHEREFORE: HOGE has filed for contempt using the form for
violating a protective order (CC-DC-DV 7) instead of for violating a peace
order (CC-DC-PO-007); and

6!

WHEREFORE: HOGE has not availed himself of proper avenues


available to him to prosecute SCHMALFELDT for his alleged violation of
the Peace Order; and
WHEREFORE: There is no provision for contempt of court in the
penalties section of the State of Marylands Peace Order Statute; and
WHEREFORE: In order to purge the alleged contempt of court,
SCHMALFELDT to travel back in time to stop himself from posting the
link to Hoges blog;
SCHMALFELDT PRAYS that this honorable court grant his initial
motion to DISMISS HOGEs Show Cause petition and CANCEL the
docketed Show Cause hearing docketed for January 30, 2015 in the
Carroll County Circuit Court for reasons of insufficient legal basis in form
and substance..

DATED: JANUARY 12, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________________
William M. Schmalfeldt, Pro Se
6636 Washington Blvd. Lot 71
Elkridge, MD 21075
410-206-9637
bschmalfeldt@comcast.net

7!

Verification
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief and all copies are true and correct
representations of the original documents.

William M. Schmalfeldt
Certificate of Service
I certify that on the 12th day of January 2015, I served a copy of the
foregoing Motion to Dismiss WJJ Hoge IIIs Petition for Contempt by First
Class Mail to W.J.J. Hoge, 20 Ridge Road, Westminster, MD 21157,
Certified, Return Receipt Requested, Restricted Delivery

William M. Schmalfeldt

8!

Оценить