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 SCHMALFELDTS MOTION FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER

(DOCKET ITEM 142/0) AND MOTION TO STRIKE SAME

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and moves the Court strike

Schmalfeldts Motion for Show Cause Order (Docket Item 142/0) pursuant to Rule

2-322(e) or, alternatively, deny Schmalfeldts Motion. Mr. Hoge states as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

Rule 2-322(e) allows the Court to strike improper, immaterial, impertinent,

or scandalous matter from a pleading. Because so little of Schmalfeldts Motion for

Show Cause Order would remain with such matter deleted, the Court should simply

strike the whole filing. Alternatively, the Motion should be denied as non-germane

and frivolous.

II. SCHMALFELDT HAS INCLUDED IMPROPER, IMMATERIAL, IMPERTINENT, AND

SCANDALOUS MATTER CONCERNING THIRD-PARTIES WITH NO CONNECTIONS TO
THE INSTANT LAWSUIT

Schmalfeldts Motion includes a great deal a material concerning third

parties, including family law and personal financial matters with no bearing on this

suit. Nothing concerning these third parties has any connection to the allegations

of defamation or breach of contract Mr. Hoge has brought against Schmalfeldt or

any lawful defense Schmalfeldt might raise. Thus, the following paragraphs of

Docket Item 142/0 should be stricken to protect the privacy of third parties: 2, 5,

16, 17, 18, 22, 24, and 26. The following exhibits should also be stricken for the

same reason: 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19.

III. SCHMALFELDT HAS INCLUDED IMMATERIAL MATTER UNCONNECTED TO THE

INSTANT LAWSUIT

While Schmalfeldt might wish to re-litigate previous cases which he lost or

bring up imagined crimes for which he has no evidence, none of those matters are

material to the questions before the Court in this case. They have nothing to do

with whether or not Schmalfeldt defamed Mr. Hoge on 4 March, 2015, or whether or

not Schmalfeldt breached the 2014 Settlement Agreement.

Specifically, these paragraphs and exhibits are immaterial and should be

stricken because Schmalfeldt has not shown any legally cognizable connection

between their subject matter and this lawsuit:

a.) Schmalfeldts unsubstantiated claim that someone forged the letter he

sent to Mr. Hoge in January, 2015, 1.

b.) Any investigation conducted by third parties into Schmalfeldts having

obtained a drivers license a few weeks after telling this Court that he could no

longer drive because of his advanced Parkinsons disease. 2-4, Exs. 2-5.

c.) Schmalfeldts unsubstantiated claim that his car was vandalized on or

about 1 April, 2017. 4, Exs. 6-8.

2
 d.) Conclusory allegations relating to previous lawsuits involving

Schmalfeldt and third parties, 6, Exs. 12, 15, or Schmalfeldt and Mr. Hoge,

8-15, Ex 10.

e.) Opinions held by third parties concerning Mr. Schmalfeldt and the use

of the comment section on Mr. Hoges website to express those opinions, 21-24,

Exs. 9, 11, 20.1

f.) Internet publications by third parties not related to Mr. Hoges

allegations against Schmalfeldt of defamation or breach of contract, 25, Ex. 21.

g.) Potential lawsuits involving President Trump,2 20.

III. SCHMALFELDTS MOTION FAILS TO MEET THE MOST BASIC BURDENS OF

PROOF

Even if the Court should choose not to strike paragraphs 1 through 26 and all

the exhibits, Schmalfeldts Motion would still consist of nothing but conclusory

allegations, and his exhibits would still be unauthenticated.

For example, Schmalfedt claims that his car was vandalized as a result of Mr.

Hoges sharing Schmalfeldts address in Clinton, Iowa, with Patrick Grady. That

1 Because none of the comments cited by Schmalfeldt incite violence or criminal acts
or make true threats, they are protected under Article 40 of the Maryland
Declaration of Right and the First Amendment. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444
(1969) and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). Further, the commenters are
responsible for their own remarks under 47 U.S.C. 230. Mr. Hoge and Hogewash!
are not.
2While one could conceivably argue that Mr. Trumps words concerning removing
protestors from a campaign rally crossed the line to incitement (per Brandenburg),
nothing Mr. Hoge has written about Schmalfeldt comes remotely close to crossing
that line.

3
simply isnt so. Schmalfeldt moved to Iowa around the first of January, 2017, and

Mr Hoge has not been in contact with Mr. Grady since the first half of 2016.3

Further, Schmalfeldt does nothing to establish any causal nexus between any

alleged communication between Messrs. Grady and Hoge and any alleged

vandalism. More to the point, there is nothing beyond Schmalfeldts conclusory

allegations showing that his car was actually vandalized 4 or that Mr. Grady or

anyone else acting under Mr. Hoges direction, encouragement, or incitement has

ever stalked or harassed Schmalfeldt.

In fact, Mr. Hoge denies ever directing, encouraging, or inciting anyone to

harass Schmalfeldt in any manner, including vandalizing his vehicle, or to engage

in any sort of violence or other crime against Schmalfeldt, and there is no evidence

to the contrary. Schmalfeldts conclusory allegations are frivolous, and the Court

should deny his Motion for a Show Cause Order.

3Even if Mr. Hoge had informed Mr. Grady of Schmalfedts address, so what?
Patrick Grady is one of several victims of Schmalfeldts harassment who have been
awarded restraining orders against Schmalfeldt, in his case, an Illinois Stalking No
Contact Order, Grady v. Schmalfeldt, Case No. 140P30607 (Ill. Cir.Ct. Cook Co.
2014), so it would be reasonable for him to seek to be generally aware of
Schmalfeldts whereabouts.
4As Mr. Hoge noted in his Opposition to the Kimberlins Motion for Sanctions
(Docket Item 137/1 at 3 and Ex. A), the photographic evidence in Schmalfeltdts
Exhibit 6 is inconsistent with the tires having been slashed. The Court should note
that shortly after Schmalfeldt claimed he was so disabled by advanced Parkinsons
disease that he should be allowed to attend a hearing by telephone (Docket Item
70/0), he obtained a Wisconsin drivers license and bought a car. The sort of damage
shown to the tires and wheel rims in his Exhibit 6 is consistent with the wheels
accidentally striking an object such as a curb while the vehicle was being operated
by an impaired driver.

4
 The unnecessary controversy that Schmalfeldt now brings before the Court is

the end product his own attempt to hide from service of court papers. See Docket

Items 110/4 and 117/1, Around the beginning of 2017, Schmalfeldt moved from

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Clinton, Iowa, but he did not provide the Court or

Mr.Hoge with a forwarding address (Docket Item 128/0) until the end of March,

2017after Mr. Hoge had already located him through other means. Even then,

some of the contact information Schmalfeldt provided is false. While the postal

address is in Iowa, the telephone number shows a Wisconsin area code. When Mr.

Hoge tried to use that phone number to contact Schmalfeldt (thinking it might be a

cell phone number still in use), he found the number was not in service. Upon

further investigation, he found that the number is in an exchange that is not active.

Upon information and belief, Schmalfeldt has recently fled from Iowa and

may now be living in or near Florence, South Carolina.

IV. SCHMALFELDT DID NOT SERVE A COPY OF THIS MOTION ON MR. HOGE

Although Mr. Hoge is unwilling to accept electronic service from Schmalfeldt,

he was sent an earlier version of this Motion via email on 9 April, 2017.5 Mr. Hoge

has not received service from Schmalfeldt of the actual version filed. He purchased

a copy from the Clerk of the Court. This failure to serve Mr. Hoge in violation of

Rule 1-321 provides an alternative reason for the Court to deny the Motion.

5The Kimberlins make reference to this earlier version of Docket Item 142/0 in
their Motion for Sanctions (Docket Item 137/0, 2.) which they filed on 20 April,
2017, six days before the date of service shown on the Certificate of Service
Schmalfeldt filed with his Motion.

5
 CONCLUSION

With all the numbered paragraph except paragraph 27 and all the exhibits

stricken, nothing of substance remains in Schmalfeldts Motion.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to strike Schmalfeldts Motion for

Show Cause Order (Docket Item 142/0) or, alternatively, to deny Schmalfeldts

Motion and to grant such other relief as it may find just and proper.

Date: 1 May, 2017 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 1st day of May, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing on
the following persons:

William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 422 3rd Avenue North, Clinton,
Iowa 52732 (last know address)

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, 422
3rd Avenue North, Clinton, Iowa 52732 (last known address)

William John Joseph Hoge

6
 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: 1 May, 2017

William John Joseph Hoge