William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND

v.

Case No. 06-C-16-070789

Brett Kimberlin, et al.,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO SCHMALFELDTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST

FOR AN ORDER OF DEFAULT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and replies to Schmalfeldts
Response to Plaintiffs Request for an Order of Default and Request for a Hearing.
In reply Mr. Hoge states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
On 29 June, 2016, Defendant Schmalfeldt served his Response to Plaintiffs
Request for an Order of Default on Mr. Hoge by email. A true and correct copy of
that email is attached as Exhibit A. Because of the Petition for Emergency
Evaluation attached to the email, Mr. Hoge is filing this Reply without waiting for
Schmalfeldts Response to appear on the docket.
SCHMALFELDT HAS FAILED TO SHOW WHY HE IS NOT IN DEFAULT
Schmalfeldt seems to believe that he is allowed to file multiple motions to
dismiss with each one tolling the need to file a responsive pleading to the
Complaint. As the Court is well aware, that is not what the Rules allow. Under
Rule 2-321, Schmalfledt had sixty days from the date he was served either to file a
responsive pleading or to file a Rule 2-322 motion. He filed a motion to dismiss

which the Court denied. At that point, he was obliged to file a responsive pleading
in a timely manner per Rule 2-321(c). Because the initial sixty days allowed to file
an answer had expired, he was allowed fifteen days to file an answer. Rule
2-321(c). Even with three additional days allowed for service of the Courts Order
by mail, Schmalfeldt did not do so. See Request for Order of Default, Docket Item
61, at 1.
Schmalfledt seems to believe that the multiple motions to dismiss he has filed
are pleadings. They are not. The pleadings allowed under the Rules are
a complaint and an answer. There may be a counterclaim, a crossclaim, and a third-party complaint. There shall be an answer to
any counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party complaint. No other
pleading shall be allowed except that the court may order a reply to
an answer.
Rule 2-302. Schmalfeldt also appears to believe that because Rule 2-613 (b) uses
the term pleading that his motions satisfy the Rules requirement that a
defendant must plead as provided by the Rules before the time for pleading expires.
He is wrong for two reasons. First, a defendant is required to plead as provided by
the Rules, and the controlling Rule in this instance is 2-321(c) which requires that
the defendant file an answer.
Second, motions arent pleadings. Moreover, a defendant isnt entitled to file
serial motions to dismiss instead of filing an answer. Rule 2-322 is clear.
If a party makes a motion under this Rule but omits any defense or
objection then available to the party that this Rule permits to be
raised by a motion, the party shall not thereafter make a motion
based on the defenses or objections so omitted[.]

Rule 2-322(f). Schmalfeldt filed a Rule 2-322 motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction which was denied. By omitting improper venue, insufficiency of
process, and insufficiency of service of process he has foregone his ability to file a
motion based on those defenses. Also, by omitting subject matter jurisdiction,
failure to state a claim, failure to join a party, discharge in bankruptcy, and
governmental immunity, he cannot raise those defenses in an additional Rule 2-322
motion that would toll the requirement to file an answer.
Quite clearly, the facts show that Schmalfeldt has failed to plead by failing to
file an answer, and his time plead has expired.
OTHER MATTERS
Mr. Hoge asks the Court to take note that the Petition for Emergency
Evaluation which Schmalfeldt attached to his Response is yet another ad hominem
attack on Mr. Hoge, albeit from a different Defendant. It certainly violates the Rule
2-322(e) prohibition of improper, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous matter in
court papersas does the evidence-free list of alleged acts found on p. 4 of the
Response. Even if Mr. Hoge were crazy and had done all the things alleged, that
would have no bearing on whether Schmalfeldt filed a timely answer to the
Complaint.
REQUEST FOR A HEARING
There is nothing in Schmalfeldts Petition for Emergency Evaluation of Mr.
Hoge that would tend to establish probable cause that Mr. Hoge has shown
symptoms of a mental disorder and presents a danger to himself or others.
3

Therefore, Mr. Hoge requests a hearing prior to any finding of probable cause, and
he requests that Defendant Schmalfeldt be ordered to attend that hearing. If the
Court can deny the Petition on the papers, then no hearing is requested.
CONCLUSION
All the requirements for an Order of Default pursuant to Rule 2-613(b) have
been met: 1) the time allowed for filing an answer has expired; 2) Schmalfeldt has
not filed an answer; 3)Schmalfeldts last known address has been provided; and 4)
Mr. Hoge has filed a Request for Default. Because the language of the Rule is
mandatory, the Court should issue an Order as soon as practicable. If Schmalfeldt
wishes to seek relief from default, he can follow the procedure prescribed by Rule
2-613,
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge requests the Court to ENTER an Order of Default
pursuant to Rule 2-613(b) against William Schmalfeldt for failure to answer the
Complaint in the instant lawsuit and to GRANT such other relief as the Court may
find just and proper.
Date: 5 July, 2016

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 5th day of July, 2016, I served copies of the foregoing on
the following persons:
William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 3209 S. Lake Drive, Apt. 108,
St. Francis, Wisconsin 53235 (last known address)
William Ferguson by First Class U. S. Mail to 10808 Schroeder Road, Live Oak,
California 95953
Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817 (last known address)
Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817 (last known address)

William John Joseph Hoge

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: 5 July, 2016
William John Joseph Hoge

Exhibit A

From:
Subject:
Date:
To:

Bill Schmalfeldt bschmalfeldt@twc.com

Response
29 June, 2016 at 19:56
WJJ Hoge himself@wjjhoge.com, hogewash@wjjhoge.com

John, my friend when you step in it, you REALLY step in it. You dont get to change the
wording in Maryland Rules to suit your purposes. This will be in tomorrows mail.
Youre getting worse and worse at this, John, and I really do believe you need some looking
after. Free advice. Walker will eventually go down. I would suggest disassociating from him
and living the rest of your golden years without bothering people with nonsense like this.
Bill

Response to Hoge's
Motion for Default.pdf

(Continuation of #10)
Attached is the Maryland Judiciary Case Search in which Petitioner demonstrates the
number of times Hoge has sought to prosecute and persecute Schmalfeldt.
In addition, his constant screeds against Schmalfeldt on his blog, http://hogewash.com,
fire up the passions of his readership, causing them to take actions against Schmalfeldt,
including filing for peace orders in far flung places that Schmalfeldts Parkinsons
disease will not allow him to access for the hearings, resulting in default findings. Also,
several of Hoges readers at Hoges urging have launched a failed campaign to
have Schmalfeldt evicted from his current lodgings in Wisconsin, where he moved after
his wifes death last year in order to make himself less available to Hoges harassment.