reply to hoge's response to motion for leave to file second amended counterclaim, aug 4

8/12/2019 Reply to Hoge's Response to Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Counterclaim, Aug 4

1/32

"

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THEDISTRICT OF MARYLAND

(Northern Division)

WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE ))

Plaintiff, )) Case Number 1:14-cv-01683 ELH

v. ))

WILLIAM M. SCHMALFELDT ))

Defendant . )

______________________________)WILLIAM M. SCHMALFELDT )

)Counterclaim Plaintiff, )

) Case Number 1:14-cv-01683 ELHv. )

)WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE)

et al )

)Counterclaim Defendants . ) ______________________________)

DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TODEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND

AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

COMES NOW Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff William M.

Schmalfeldt in reply to Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant William John

Joseph Hoge IIIs Opposition to Defendants Motion for Leave to File a

Second Amended Counterclaim.


2/32

#

COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS MOTION IS FAR FROM FUTILE

Mr. Hoge thoughtfully reminds the Court that Mr. Schmalfeldt has

already amended his counterclaim as allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).

Schmalfeldt is more than well aware that he does so without Hoges

permission, which is why he is asking court for the leave to file the

document.

Mr. Hoge has apparently adjudicated all the facts raised in

Schmalfeldts counterclaim and, negating the need for a judge or jury, has

decided the merits of the case weigh against Schmalfeldt, and thats why the

Court should find the Counterclaim futile because Mr. Hoge says it is.

It is one thing to say the futility of a brief is obvious on the face of the

document. It is quite another thing to explain to the Court why this is the

case. Hoge does not attempt to do so, because the futility is that obvious

Schmalfeldt supposes.

Schmalfeldt does not intend to re-litigate his reasons for filing a

second amended counterclaim other than the points already raised in the

counterclaim itself. If Mr. Hoge wishes to oppose the second amended

counterclaim, it is certainly his right to do so. However, a brief does not

suffer from fatal deficiencies just because Hoge says it does.


3/32

$

Portions of Hoges response are laughable. The contention that

Schmalfeldt does not know for a fact that Counterclaim Defendant, the

pseudonymous Paul Krendler does not live in Maryland, therefore

Schmalfeldt cannot file a diversity question is borderline insanity. The fact

that neither Schmalfeldt nor the Court know where Krendler lives while

Hoge does as evidenced by Exhibit A (Hoges e-mail from Krendler

directing him where to mail the $5 check for transfer of Krendlers world

book and ebook rights). Schmalfeldt feels this Court would be within its

rights to demand that Hoge reveal the address at once or face contempt

charges or criminal charges for obstruction of justice.

Mr. Hoge thoughtfully reminds the court that Schmalfeldt does not

have standing to file charges against Mr. Hoge for violations of 17 USC

506(c) and (e), a fact recognized by Schmalfeldt and made clear in his

Prayer for Relief in the Second Amended Complaint when he asks the Court

to refer Hoge for charges for violation of these laws.

Hoge states that Schmalfeldt fails to state a claim for which relief can

be granted. But there are no specifics, other than the assertion from Hoge

that the motion is futile.

In regards to Schmalfeldts claim of Defamation or False Light

Invasion of Privacy, of course the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff.


4/32

%

Thats what trials are for. Hoge is asking the Court to dismiss the

Counterclaim because Schmalfeldt raises issues that must be decided in a

court of law. Amazing. Hoge also instructs the Court that Schmalfeldt must

plead that such defamation was carried out with malice. Schmalfeldt has

already established malice by the fact that Hoge has filed 367 criminal

charges against him, all dismissed. Schmalfeldt has alleged that Hoge

obtained his Peace Order and its subsequent six-month extension by lying to

a Carroll County Circuit Court Judge. That is a pretty clear demonstration of

malice. Add to the soup the ingredient of the Peace Order Hoge sought

against Schmalfeldt for having the temerity to contact him in a manner not

approved in advance by Hoge, and then appealing the Carroll County

District Courts decision to send him packing, Schmalfeldt does not feel that

proving malice will be a difficult obstacle to overcome. Add the fact that

Hoge runs a hate blog dedicated to the destruction of whats left of

Schmalfeldts once-sterling reputation, and that he is benefitting from

increased readership as a result, we have a very nice defamation soup to

serve to the Counterclaim Court. (Exhibit B)

Schmalfeldt has already submitted exhibits to the Court demonstrating

defamatory, libelous statements made by Hoge. In as much as Hoge

continues to claim Copyright ownership of comments sent to his blog (ECF


5/32

&

45), the old saying goes, you bought it? Its yours. Same with the libelous

defamatory blog post written by Krendler.

Of course Schmalfeldt can only claim compensation for actual injury.

How much is a persons reputation worth? Before Schmalfeldt ever heard of

Hoge, a Google check of his name would reveal his work with the National

Institutes of Health, his status as one of the founding Program Directors at

XM Satellite Radio, his volunteering for experimental brain surgery in the

hopes that it might help future generations of Parkinsons disease patients,

and his books about his experience with Parkinsons disease.

Since Hoge and his readers and commenters Google-bombed

Schmalfeldt as a Deranged Cyberstalker and Adjudicated Harasser,

those are the top results that pop up in a Google search for my name.

Schmalfeldts reputation will live long after he does. Following

conclusion of this court business, he intends to use what limited time he has

left to attempt to rebuild that reputation by working for laws that protect

indigent adults from cyberbullying, the same way current laws protect

teenagers. After many unsuccessful attempts to secure legal representation in

the instant case because he does not have the money to pay a lawyer up front

for his or her services, Schmalfeldt has come to the conclusion that justice

may be a concept available only to those who can afford it. He would like to


6/32

'

change that so others in his position in the future may have resources to

properly litigate against the other WJJ Hoges out in the world who think

nothing of destroying the most valuable possession a person owns his or

her reputation.

Hoge claims Schmalfeldt offers no basis for his claim of intentional

emotional distress. Schmalfeldt has already offered this Court medical proof

that added stress increases the rate at which Parkinsons disease accelerates.

Therefore, not only has Hoge been instrumental in destroying Schmalfeldts

carefully constructed reputation, he has also likely taken years off of

Schmalfeldts life. How does a Court compensate a person for the potential

loss of years? If Schmalfeldt were a victim of mesothelioma or any number

of the other fatal diseases one sees in the lawfirm commercials, and Hoge

were responsible for sprinkling asbestos on Schmalfeldts pillow every

night, he would be charged with at the very least attempted murder. But

since Hoge did not cause Schmalfeldts Parkinsons disease (the root cause

of the disease, what starts the chain reaction death of the dopamine

producing neurons in the brain is not yet known), and has merely accelerated

its progression, he thinks he has the right to just walk away without sanction,

without punishment. This Court can hold him responsible for his portion in


7/32

(

the destruction of Schmalfeldts reputation and the very real possibility that

his actions have taken years off of Schmalfeldts life span.

Emotional distress and its intentional infliction is a serious matter. It is

the provence of bullies and those who pull the wings off of flies. It is the sort

of thing a person with an inferiority complex does to make him or herself

feel better about his or her failed lot in life. Hoge clearly believes he is the

smartest person in any room. Even the courtroom, where we all witnessed

his attempts to instruct the Court on the finer points of Copyright Law.

Again, Hoge asserts Schmalfeldts claim for relief is futile. Because

he says so.

Schmalfeldt has not once in the instant case used the fact that he is pro

se as an excuse. The fact that Hoge even mentions it (in his blog, he refers to

me these days as the Dreaded Pro Se TM Bill Schmalfeldt (Exhibit C)).

Every time someone sues Hoge or attempts a DMCA takedown, it is

automatically a vexatious lawsuit or a bogus lawsuit or a vindictive lawsuit.

Every legal maneuver Hoge executes is lauded by himself and his readers as

the greatest legal victory since Brown v. the Board of Education.

The only thing fatally flawed is Hoges approach to the law and to

humanity at large. Schmalfeldt explained to Carroll County Circuit Court

Judge Thomas Stansfield after he awarded the six-month extension to


8/32

)

Hoges Peace Order that this behavior by Hoge will continue until someone

forces him to stop. Schmalfeldt hopes this Court will finally, at long last, too

late for him but sending a message that may help others, make Hoge stop.

DATED: AUGUST 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

________________________________________

William M. Schmalfeldt6636 Washington Blvd. Lot 71Elkridge, MD 21075410-206-9637

[email protected]

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 correctrepresentations of the original documents.

William M. Schmalfeldt

Certificate of Service

I certify that on the 4 h day of August, 2014, I served a copy of theforegoing Reply to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction andMemorandum in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss by First ClassMail to W.J.J.Hoge, 20 Ridge Road, Westminster, MD 21157, Certified,Return Receipt Requested.

William M. Schmalfeldt


9/32

"

EXHIBIT A

HOGES EMAIL FROM

KRENDLER SETTING UP THECOPYRIGHT TRANSFER


10/32

"


11/32

"

EXHIBIT B

A LINE GRAPHDEMONSTRATING THE

NUMBER OF COMMENTS PERDAY ON HOGEWASH.COM FORJULY 2012, 2013 and 2014 WHICH

SHOWS HOW POPULAR HISBLOG HAS BECOME SINCE HE

RESORTED TO WRITING A

HATE BLOG FOR THEENTERTAINMENT OF HISCOMMENTERS


12/32

#


13/32

"

EXHIBIT C

A SAMPLING OF BLOG POSTSDEMONSTRATING HOGES

LACK OF RESPECT FORSCHMALFELDTSINTELLIGENCE, HIS

FONDNESS FOR DEROGATORYNICKNAMES, AND HIS

OVERALL HUBRIS


14/32

"


15/32

#


16/32

$


17/32

%


18/32

&


19/32

'


20/32

(


21/32

)


22/32

*


23/32

"+


24/32

""


25/32

"#


26/32

"$


27/32

"%


28/32

"&


29/32

"'


30/32

"(


31/32

")


32/32

reply to hoge's response to motion for leave to file second amended counterclaim, aug 4

Documents