IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY MARYLAND ‘WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE, IIT Plaintiff % Case No, 06-C-16-070789 BRETT KIMBERLIN, et al., Defendants DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO SCHMALFELDT’S MOTION TO AMEND DOCKET ITEM 158/0 NOW COMES pro se defendant William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., (DEFENDANT) with this Response to Plaintiff's Response to Plaintiffs Opposition to Schmalfeldt’s Motion to Amend Docket Item 158/0. I THERE IS NOTHING IMPROPER ABOUT DEFENDANT'S MOTION Plaintiff relies on a series of lies and partial truths in his motion of opposition, Defendant served a copy of his response to requests for admission of facts and genuineness of motions. At some point in the course of this case, the Plaintiff decided he no longer wished to be served by ¢- mail, which is not disallowed by Rule 1-321, without telling Defendant his reasons or rationale. But he was served. ‘Schmalfeldt admits he was late with his response. As mentioned previously, Defendant has suffered from the progressive neurological disorder called Parkinson’s disease since being diagnosed in 2000. At 17 years post-diagnosis, Defendant has already outlived the average post- iagnosis lifespan for this illness. However he is suffering from memory deficits as well as executive function disorders as a result. He believed that Plaintiff had never served him with the request for admissions, Plaintiff cynically waited until after the expiration date to provide proof that he had mailed such a request and Defendant immediately responded with an apology and hisrequest to amend his response to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions, Motion for Summary ‘Judgment, etc. IL, HOGE NOW WISHES TO USE DEFENDANTS ILLNESS AGAINST HIM IN A CYNICAL ATTEMPT TO ENTER EVIDENCE THAT HOGE KNOWS IS NOT TRUE Anallegation is not conclusory just because Hoge says it is, Defendant has not claimed that Hoge is required to notify Schmalfeldt that his response deadline is approaching, only that Hoge waited until the deadline passed before proving that he had sent such a request for admissions. It may not be a legal requirement for a Plaintiff to act like a decent human being, but then again, Defendant does not have the services of an under-the-table attomey like Plaintiff does in the person of Aaron J. Walker, Esq., of Manassas, VA, to help him keep tabs on things that might slip the mind of @ person with a brain affected by more than 17 years with Parkinson’s disease. Schmalfeldt will wait until Plaintiff is under oath to ask him if he wishes to stand by the claim that Aaron Walker has not assisted him in the writing of his briefs in the instant case. Hoge is lying to the court — again — when he says that Schmalfeldt provided no evidence to support his statement that plaintiff had Schmalfeldt’s answers to request for admissions. Plaintiff provides proof of this lie by his statement that he saw the blog entry Schmalfeldt wrote containing a copy of the e-mail he sent to Hoge and remarked that should Schmalfeldt delete the post it would prove to be “spoliation of evidence.” He either saw the e-mail or he did not. Once again, Hoge relies on half-truths when he claims in his opposition: Schmalfeldt falsely states that Mr. Hoge had his answers to the Requests for Admission on 1 April, 2017, but offers no evidence to support his statement. (Opposition, § 8) ‘Schmalfeldt, however, never made such a direct claim as Mr. Hoge is well aware. In §7 of his Motion to Amend, Schmalfeldt states:To be clear, the Plaintiff had Schmalfeldt’s answers to his request as of April 1, 2017, the day after, on information and belief, persons unknown acted on Hoge’s behalf to stab two of Defendant's tires within 24 of Hoge learning Schmalfeldt’s Towa address. With that going on, it would be understandable if a person with 17- years of Parkinson’s disease let something slip through the cracks. (Motion to Amend, 47) (Emphasis added) ‘Schmalfeldt is not going to argue with Hoge as to whether the tires were stabbed or not. Before Schmalfeldt drove the car around to the back of his house to get it off the street, causing the sidewall damage Hoge and his apologists claim as “curb rash”, the Clinton, Iowa Police Department noted a clear stab mark on the outer side wall of each tire. The fact that Defendant’s ‘car was the only car vandalized on the street out of the dozens parked there overnight within 24 hours of Hoge receiving Schmalfeldt’s address in lowa may well be a strange coincidence, if one believes in such things. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE this Defendant wearily asks this court to bring this Hoge-inspired clown show to an end and, in the process thereof, deny Hoge’s latest effort to whip “alternate facts” past the court and enter falsehoods into the official record of this case by denying Hoge’s opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Amend Docket # 158/0. Respectfully submitted Dated this 5a Day of June, 2017 Arr ee ‘William M, Schmalfeldt, Sr. Myrtle Beach, SC 29579 (843) 429-0581 broadwaybill9476@outlook.comCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Certify that on the 5" day of June 2017, I served copies of the above on the following persons, William John Joseph Hoge by FIRST CLASS MAIL, Brett and Tetyana 7 William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., Pro Se Kimberlin, by e-mail. AFFIDAVIT I, William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., 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: June 5, 2017 tA 4 William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr. Pro Se