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

DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDTS
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS
APPARENT REQUEST FOR A HEARING
REGARDING DEFENDANTS
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS
MOTION FOR DEFAULT

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 Request
for an Order of Default and states the following:
I.

DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDT IS NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT IT IS THAT

THE PLAINTIFF IS SEEKING FROM THIS COURT WITH HIS MOST
RECENT FILING
1.

Realizing that Plaintiff WJJ Hoges Motion for Default has now been completely

briefed in the instant case, this pro se Defendant is confused by what it is, exactly, Mr. Hoge is
requesting of the court:
2.

His most recent motion is titled: PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO

SCHMALFELDTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR AN ORDER OF

DEFAULT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING. Defendant is not clear from the caption if
Plaintiff is asking for a hearing, or if in Plaintiffs confusion one of the reasons Defendant
Schmalfeldt has asked this Court to submit Mr. Hoge for a mental competency exam Mr. Hoge
somehow believes that Defendant Schmalfeldt has asked for a hearing.

3.

Nowhere, other than in the title of the reply, does Mr. Hoge say a word about

requesting a hearing. This raises several questions:

a.

What is the purpose of the hearing?

b.

If this is Mr. Hoges request, what is it he wants this Court to decide?

c.

If Mr. Hoge believes Defendant Schmalfeldt has requested a hearing, he is

incorrect. In fact, it is for the very reason that travel to and from Maryland from Wisconsin
would present Schmalfeldt with hazards and difficulties defined in earlier pleadings that Mr.
Schmalfeldt would not request a hearing.
4.

If, in fact, Mr. Hoge is requesting a hearing, Defendant Schmalfeldt prays that this

Court DENY Mr. Hoges request for the reasons mentioned concerning Schmalfeldts lack of
ability to travel. If this is a request from Mr. Hoge, it seems to Defendant Schmalfeldt to be a
back door, disingenuous effort to force Mr. Schmalfeldt into a untenable position by requiring
him to endure the physical pain and difficulties inherent in travel, or risk a default judgment on
the hearing requested. This would serve as more proof that Mr. Hoges serial vexatious and
vindictive actions against Mr. Schmalfeldt are more in the interest of putting Mr. Schmalfeldt in
physical peril than they are a search for justice.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, as Defendant Schmalfeldt is unclear as to what sort of hearing is being
requested in Mr. Hoges Reply to Defendant Schmalfeldts Response to Plaintiffs Request for
an Order of Default and Request for a Hearing, Schmalfeldt again asks this court to give urgent
consideration to the Petition for Emergency Evaluation to determine Mr. Hoges mental status

and to rule on Defendants previous motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue and/or his Motion to
Transfer/Dismiss Hoges Case Under the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens, as well as for any
further relief this court deems just.
As Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Request for an Order of Default has not yet been
docketed as of July 5, after being mailed June 29, Defendant Schmalfeldt has included a fresh
copy for the court in case the original was lost in the mail.
Respectfully Submitted this 6thth day of July, 2016,

/s/William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.

William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.
3209 S. Lake Dr., Apt. 108
Saint Francis, WI 53235
414-249-4379
bschmalfeldt@twc.com
Pro Se Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this pleading has on this day been sent by electronic mail to
WJJ Hoge III by agreement between the parties.

/s/William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.

William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.
Pro Se Defendant