IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND

William John Joseph Hoge, III

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

)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 06-C-16-070789

REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO
APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY AT
UPCOMING MOTIONS HEARING
PROPOSED ORDER

NOW COMES Defendant William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr. of 3209 South Lake Drive,
Apartment 108, Saint Francis, WI, 53235, a pro se defendant in the above-styled case for the sole
purpose of challenging personal jurisdiction and without waiving any rights of jurisdiction,
notice, process, service of process, joinder, or venue to file this Response to Plaintiffs
Opposition to Defendants Motion to Appear Telephonically at Upcoming Motions Hearing.
I.
ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY WOULD IN NO
WAY BE PREJUDICIAL TO PLAINTIFF
1.

In one of the most despicable motions ever filed in the long, vindictive, vexatious

history of this Plaintiffs courtroom warfare against his perceived enemies, opposing a disabled
persons request to appear telephonically at a motion hearing sets a new, higher bar for
vindictiveness by a Plaintiff. Defendants appearance by telephone goes hand in hand with his
previously filed motion to Transfer Plaintiffs Case or Dismiss Under the Doctrine of Forum Non
Conveniens. (Document 60/0). If this Court denies Defendants motion to appear telephonically
at the September 27, 2016 motions hearing, then the Court will render Defendants motion moot
without actually ruling on it.
2.

Plaintiff displays his wild, paranoid, conspiratorial nature in his opposition by

suggesting that an audio-only connection would not assure that it is actually this defendant
arguing his own motion. He makes the unsubstantiated allegation that my pending motions have

unusual legal theories attached to them. Defendant doesnt really understand what it is about
his demeanor and credibility that demands his physical presence to aid this Court in making a
ruling on Defendants motions.
3.

Plaintiff argues, There is nothing in the Maryland Rules that allows for a

telephonic appearance by counsel or a pro se party at a motions hearing. He does not argue that
there is anything in the Maryland Rules forbidding such an appearance.
4.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants motion to appear by telephone was made in the

form of a letter. This was done after Defendant called the Carroll County Clerk of the Circuit
Court to inquire as how to apply for permission to appear at this hearing via telephone.
Defendant was told, You could write a letter to the court requesting permission.
5.

Plaintiff wonders from whence Defendant will argue/testify. If the Court has

caller ID, it will be able to determine that I am calling from my residence at 3209 S. Lake Dr.,
Apt. 108, Saint Francis, WI. The phone number is 414-294-4397.
6.

Answering Plaintiffs bizarre contention that he has no way of knowing whether

or not Defendant will have guests in his apartment attending the conversation, Defendant
declares he will be in his apartment, alone, with the telephone receiver in his hand. The phone is
VOIP, a service of Time Warner Cable. Defendant has attached a photo of the telephone he will
use in the hopes of assuaging Plaintiffs fears. (Exhibit A)
7.

Assuming Plaintiff is correct in that Defendant fell 3 days short of the 30-day

limit to make such a request, it is because Defendant wasnt aware he could make such a request
until he called the Carroll County Clerk of the Circuit Court. Defendant maintains the Court can

consider that as good cause and thus deny Plaintiffs hair-splitting.

8.

Plaintiff insultingly states, Defendant claims to be suffering from Parkinsons

disease. (Emphasis added.) Defendant claims no such thing. It is a fact, a provable assertion
backed up by the opinion of the United States Federal Government which authorized my early
disability retirement from the National Institutes of Health, and the Social Security
Administration which approved Defendants disability request on the first attempt due to
Defendants diagnosis of Parkinsons disease.
9.

Plaintiff is not a doctor, let alone a neurologist specializing in movement

disorders. One of the more common reappearing themes on his blog is the supposition that
Defendant is faking his Parkinsons disease. Instead of relying on Plaintiff, the Court should
rely on the experts:
Although every Parkinson's disease situation is unique, the stress of travel can make
Parkinson's symptoms more pronounced, including cognitive issues, according to Linda
Pituch, senior manager of patient services at the Parkinson's Disease Foundation.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/burbank/2014/12/03 travelingwith-parkinsons-disease/19789677/
However, as experienced and seasoned as I may have thought I was nothing prepared me
for the difficulties of travelling with Parkinsons. I know there is priority boarding in a
wheelchair, if one is ready for that experience, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Without going into too much detail and trying not to whinge further lets just say that
Parkinsons Disease and flying are not good bed fellows.
http://www.wearingoff.eu/blog/travelling-with-parkinsons-disease-by-chris/

As Defendant has undergone Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery, air travel brings extra obstacles.
For those with DBS, traveling by air gets a little more complicated.
You can go through the security line until you reach the metal detector.

Do not go through the metal detector. If you go through the metal detector, your
neurostimulator device may set off the alarm and the security equipment may turn off the
neurostimulator.
If they try to force you to go through the detection device or be screened by means of a
security wand device, calmly and firmly insist that you need a pat-down instead.
The TSA employee will call for a male or female assist to provide the pat down, and
will advise you where to wait.
When the pat-down person arrives, repeat to this person that you need a pat-down. If they
asks you why, tell him or her that you have an implanted medical device. Dont try to
explain the intricacies of DBS.
Show the person your Medtronic Patient Identification Card, if necessary. It contains
information about you, your device, and your doctor, plus Medtronics Patient Services
number. This card will NOT exempt you from the screening process.
Once your carry-on items have cleared security, they will be taken by the TSA employee
so that you can keep them in your view during the pat-down.
Before starting the pat-down, the TSA employee will ask if you want a personal
screening or a private screening. My suggestion is to have a screening in public view in
the event that anything inappropriate occurs and you might need bystanders to provide
documentation.
The TSA employee will do the pat-down with his or her hands instead of a metal
detection wand.
When the pat-down is finished, dont forget to pick up your belongings including your
carry-on luggage which has gone through the same screening machine as everyone elses.
Once youve cleared security, use your patient controller to make sure your DBS system
is still on. If it has turned off, turn it back on.
http://katekelsall.typepad.com/my_weblog/parkinsons-travel/
It is true that Defendant endured a 90-minute train ride to Chicago recently. It is also true that his
condition required him to take what should have been a one-day trip and turn it into an overnight
affair so he could ride the train on one day, conduct his affairs and return home on the next day.
It took Defendant several days to recover from the pain and fatigue caused by this otherwise
luxurious trip. Plaintiff is demanding, for no good reason, that Defendant endure a two day train

ride with the purchase of a bedroom compartment as Defendant will not travel by air. He would
require that Defendant pay the expense of at least two nights in a hotel: one for the day he
arrives, one for the night after the hearing. Then, the two-day return trip. Plaintiff is perfectly
aware of the stress, pain and other discomfort this will cause Defendant. As Defendant stated in
his letter to this court, Defendant believes that Plaintiffs opposition to Defendants motion falls
in line with his sadistic bent to cause as much pain and discomfort as possible to Defendant.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, as Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any statute in Maryland law
forbidding telephonic appearance at a motions hearing, and;
WHEREFORE Defendant has an outstanding motion with this court asking that
Plaintiffs case be transferred or dismissed under the doctrine of forum inconveniens, and;
WHEREFORE Plaintiff has not made a case for how he could possibly be prejudiced by
Defendants telephonic appearance;
PLAINTIFF PRAYS as follows:
A.

That this Court rule on Defendants outstanding motion to DISMISS Plaintiffs

entire case due to the doctrine of forum inconveniens;

B.

That in the alternative, this Court GRANT Defendants motion to appear at the

September 27, 2016 motions hearing via telephone;

C.

That this Court grant whatever relief it sees as just and necessary.

DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2016

Respectfully submitted.

WILLIAM M. SCHMALFELDT, SR
3209 S. Lake Drive, Apt. 108
Saint Francis, WI 53235
(414) 249-4379
bschmalfeldt@twc.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 12th day of September, 2016, I served copies of the foregoing on the
Plaintiff and other named defendants via e-mail in keeping with prior agreements.

William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.

AFFADAVIT
I, William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the contents
of the foregoing motion are true to the best of my knowledge.

William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND

William John Joseph Hoge, III
Plaintiff pro se,
v.
Brett Kimberlin, et al.
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 06-C-16-070789

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDTS
MOTION TO APPEAR AT SEPT. 27, 2016
MOTIONS HEARING
TELEPHONICALLY

On August 30, 2016, pro se Defendant Schmalfeldt filed a request to appear

telephonically at the Motions Hearing set for September 27, 2016 at 8:45 am EDT. Good cause
appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Request is GRANTED.
Immediately on the receipt of this order, the Clerk of Courts is ordered to contact
Defendant Schmalfeldt with information on how to affect his participation in the hearing via
telephone.
Dated September ___, 2016

________________________________
JUDGE FRED S. HECKER
Circuit Court for Carroll County

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND

William John Joseph Hoge, III
Plaintiff pro se,
v.
Brett Kimberlin, et al.
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 06-C-16-070789

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDTS
MOTION DISMISS PLAINTIFFS
CHARGES UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
FORUM INCONVENIENS

On June 28, 2016, Defendant William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., filed a motion to either
transfer or dismiss the above captioned case under the doctrine of Forum Inconveniens.
DISCUSSION
Defendant Schmalfeldt suffers from Stage IV Parkinsons disease, meaning he is unable
to ambulate without some sort of assisted device. According to the National Parkinson
Foundation, people with advanced Parkinsons disease are advised to travel with a companion, if
they can endure the difficulties and stressors inherent with traveling with this progressive
neurological disorder. Defendant Schmalfeldt lives in Saint Francis, Wisconsin. That would
require travel of 800 miles in each direction, not to mention hotel and other expenses that would
be incurred by being compelled to travel. Mr. Schmalfeldt has been a widower since June 17,
2015. As such he no longer has someone to travel with him, increasing the difficulty, discomfort
and danger involved for a person with a gait disturbance and balance difficulties caused by
Parkinsons disease. Good cause being shown it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs case
against Defendant Schmalfeldt is DISMISSED without prejudice. Nothing in this order prohibits
Plaintiff from refiling his case in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in Wisconsin.

Dated September ___, 2016

________________________________
JUDGE FRED S. HECKER
Circuit Court for Carroll County
8

EXHIBIT A
Photo, taken in Defendants Living Room on September 12, 2016, intended to satisfy Plaintiffs
concerns about the phone that would be used in the September 27, 2016 motions hearing.

Apparent in the photo, the scars atop Defendants head from 2007 Deep Brain Stimulation
Surgery, a permanent rash on his left cheek (seborrheic dermatitis), a common non-motor
symptom of Parkinsons disease, and the white button on his neck chain to alert first responders
if Defendant falls due to his Parkinsons-related balance difficulties.