IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY MARYLAND WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE, Il ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) Case No, 06-C-16-070789 ) BRETT KIMBERLIN, et al., ) Defendants ) ) DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A SHOW CAUSE ORDER FOR CONTEMPT. 1. NOW COMES pro se defendant William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., (DEFENDANT) to respond it to Plaintiff WJJ Hoge III’s motion for a show cause order for contempt of court. If this court was looking for reason to bring these proceedings to a sudden halt, Mr. Hoge has provided that reason. FACTS 2. The plaintiff contends that this defendant violated Maryland Rule 16-208(c)(2) for making a "surreptitious audio recording" of the May 5, 2017 hearing — which was the last. time the plaintiff tried to find this defendant in contempt of court and was denied. 3. Plaintiff cites the punishment provision of the rule without explaining how defendant allegedly violated the rule. The section cited up by the plaintive reads: An individual who willfully violates this rule or any reasonable limitation imposed by the local administrative judge or presiding judge may be found in contempt of court and sanetioned in aceordance with the rules in Title 15, chapter 200 4. Upon viewing the video, the court will note that only the defendant’s face can be seen and the audio from the court hearing can be heard on the video. Nowhere in the rule mentioned by Mr. Hoge does one see any prohibition for audio recording of a court proceedingdone from the privacy of one’s own domicile. Plaintiff's argument that my temporary motel room became an extension of the court room might have some weight if the video included images of the court room. But nowhere in this cour’s instructions to the defendant on the conduct of a Skype hearing is there a mention of any prohibition against the defendant recording his own image or audio during a hearing, (EXHIBIT A) In fact, Maryland Rule 16-208(a)(1) specifically defines the term “Court Facility.” (1) Court Facility. “Court facility” means the building in which a circuit court or the District Court is located. If the court is in a building that also is occupied by county or State executive agencies having no substantial connection with the court, “court facility” means only that part of the building occupied by the court. Maryland Rule 16-208(b)(2)(E\(i) states: Except with the express permission of the presiding judge or as otherwise permitted by this Rule, Rules 16-502, 16-503, 16-504, or 16-603, all electronic devices inside a courtroom shall remain off and no electronic device may be used to receive, transmit, or record sound, visual images, data, or other information. (Emphasis added) Defendant was not in the courtroom. By agreement with the court, Defendant was in his motel room in Florence, South Carolina. The instructions to the Plaintiff in Exhibit A, once again, raise no prohibition of Defendant recor ing his own image with background audio (and no video) from the court 5, This defendant could speculate on the reasons why plaintiff is seeking yet another contempt of court order, having lost count of how many this makes in the instant case filed by the plaintiff, but instead he asks this court to take into account the vexatious, vindictive nature of the plaintiff and see this case for what 6. Atthe May 5 hearing, this defendant tried to impress upon the court the plaintifP’s rationale for pressing this case, and the honorable judge replied, “There is certainly no love lost between the parties in this case.” The defendant replied that he would gladly walk away from thePlaintiff and never hear his name again as the plaintiff's harassment has caused this defendant to move ftom Maryland, to lowa, to Wisconsin and now to South Carolina with the hopes of leaving this vexatious plaintiff behind once and for all. The honorable judge said at the time that ‘was not the matter facing the court. Then, on May &, the court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment which would have brought this case to a conclusion. This entire case is nothing but the Plaintiff attempting to harass this defendant and his codefendants and cause as much discomfort and expense to them as possible. The Plaintiff cares little for how much time or money is spent in the pursuit of vengeance for the imaginary wrongs done to him. This case is the only thing he has in his life at present, even moreso since the untimely death of his wife in February. 7. The only prohibitions mentioned in Rule 16-208 concem photographs and video. Again, no mention of audio. “Except as permitted in accordance with this rule... a person may not take or record a photograph, video, or other visual image in a court facility or transmit a photograph, video, or other visual image from within a court facility”. 8. By now, this court should have had a belly full of this plaintiffs vexatious, vindictive, unnecessary and expensive delays, motions, show cause orders, and other nonsense presented by the Plaintiff to this court. In fact, this defendant joins codefendant Brett Kimberlin in wondering aloud why in Gods name this court is allowing this travesty, this circus sideshow to continue. WHEREFORE, once again the plaintiff in this case is ereating law where none exists, and finding imaginary reasons to sanction this defendant by reading words that were never printed in the Maryland Rules, this defendant humbly prays that this court expeditiously deny theplaintifis show cause order request, and in the altemative, issue whatever sanctions and relief it deems necessary to bring this case to a conclusion so that this Defendant might spend the rest of his days enjoying his retirement, the new love in his life, his new location on the beach, without worrying about what sort of insect Mr. Hoge is going to discover in his descending colon a month from now. In this Defendant's opinion, enough of Carroll County’s time and money has been wasted on this case already and there is no useful purpose in allowing this to continue for any other reason that to amuse Mr. Hoge. The plaintiff is not serious about any “search for justice,” but instead is asking this court to punish this defendant and his codefendants because he has been unable to punish them himself thus far. Respectfully submitted Dated this 10m Day of May, 2017 Myrtle Beach, SC 29579 (563) 503-8730 broadwaybill9476@outlook.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 Certify that on the 10th day of May 2016, I served copies of the above on the following persons. William John Joseph Hoge, by first class mail; Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin, by e-mail nt et / William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., Pro Se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. r t LW Date: May 10, 2017 ha i William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr. Pro Se