IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY MARYLAND WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE, Ili Plaintiff. ‘Case No. 06-C-16-070789 v. BRETT KIMBERLIN, et al., Defendants DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF HOGE’S MOTION IN LIMINE ‘NOW COMES pro se defendant William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., (DEFENDANT) with this Response to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine. Defendant will only respond to portions of Hoge’s motion that deal directly with Defendant, 1, COUNTS III AND IV — DEFAMATION Defendant has admitted nothing of the sort as alleged by Plaintiff. This is another attempt by Hoge to use technicalities he knows from his dealings with his best friend, a practicing attorney. The defendants in this case are not attorneys are are doing their best to keep up with this flurry of motions from this obsessed plaintiff who has one goal in life and that is to “get Brett Kimberlin” and anyone associated with him in his apparently disturbed mind. Hoge knows Defendant did not write the e-mail in question. Hoge is aware that in every dealing he has had with Defendant, Schmalfeldt has used his own name. Given how upset ‘Schmalfeldt was with Hoge allowing his readers to smear the memory of Schmalfeldt’s late wife. ‘Schmalfeldt is the last person who would send an anonymous e-mail to hurt a widower. If Schmalfeldt ever wanted to cause mental distress to Hoge or anyone else, Schmalfeldt would want that person to be fully aware of who was making the statement. This motion of Hoge’s is typical of the behavior of a schoolyard bully, and has beendemonstrated in his past dealings with the Defendant. This court is aware of how Schmalfeldt alleges Hoge lied to him about not seeking an appeal of the Distriet Court’s ruling against him in a Peace Order case, only to attend the Circuit Court hearing without warning the Defendant that he had changed his mind, gamering an uncontested — and his final ~ peace order against Schmalfeldt. ‘An honorable man who feels he has the evidence to prove his case does not try to tie his, ‘opponents’ hands behind their backs as Hoge is attempting to do with this motion. He seeks this Court’s leave to present any evidence he wishes to draw whatever false conclusions he wishes the Court to accept as true without allowing the Defendants to properly defend themselves. Hoge takes advantage of Schmalfeldt’s proven progressive neurologic disorder, his nearly 18-years as a Parkinson’s disease patient, He has sought to use Schmalfeldt’s illness as a weapon against Schmalfeldt in a hamfisted attempt to discourage Schmalfeldt from attending court hearings via Skype since he is fully aware — and a health care professional has indicated — that long periods of sitting cause discomfort and pain to the Defendant, which it seems would make Hoge very happy. In effect, Hoge wants to punish all defendants in this case before a scrap of evidence is presented to the Court. Schmalfeldt believed he had answered and mailed his response to Hoge’s Motion for Summary Judgment. A person who has had Parkinson’s disease for neatly 18 years will have ‘occasional trouble with memory as indicated in past motions made by the Defendant. Like a spider waiting patiently for the fly to catch itself in the web, Hoge waited until the deadline for response had passed before saying anything about it, hoping this Court would allow him to use a technicality to abuse a pro-se defendant with prove and demonstrated neurological and memory difficulties.The comment Schmalfeldt made referenced in Count [V was a statement of opinion, protected by the First Amendment, Hoge seems to believe that he is blameless in allowing his readers to defame Schmalfeldt at will with their false accusations of child pomography, rape, abuse of his late wife. But he sees a simple opinion agreeing with the writing of a person who will not even stand trial in this case as defamation most foul. There isn’t a defamatory word about Hoge in the referenced article, but that will be disclosed in the trial. As to Count V, the Defendant specifically denied in his Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint that he was the author of the comment written by the anonymous “John Doe 2”. Il COUNT XII - BREACH OF CONTRACT Schmalfeldt intends to show the Court that Hoge approaches this Count with unclean hands as he is responsible for breaching the contract — if such contract ever existed — by violating the Twitter Terms of Service. Schmalfeldt has within the past few days received information from Twitter Headquarters proving Schmalfeldt’s allegation CONCLUSION WHEREFORE this Defendant once again asks this Court to bring a halt to Hoge’s eynical abuse of these Defendants and this Court by denying his Motion in Limine in Full. If the Court allows Hoge to tie the Defendants’ hands behind their backs and not allow them to defend ‘themselves, a finding in Hoge’s favor will be tainted and be a ripe topic for an appeals court. (This space intentionally left blank for formatting purposes.)Respectfully submitted Dated this 144 Day of August 2017 Ao We William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr. Myrtle Beach, SC 29579 (843) 429-0581 truthatory@outlook.c mn CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Certify that on the 14" day of August 2017, I served copies of the above on the following persons. William John Joseph Hoge by FIRST CLASS MAIL, Brett and Tetyana Mn A— William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., Pro Se Kimberlin, by e-mail. AFFIDAVIT 1, 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. A yf William M. Schmaifeldt, Sr. Pro Se Date: August 14, 2017