You are on page 1of 7

!"#" %&#'(&)' )*!

(' +*( ',-

%&#'(&)' *+ ./(01/2%
324567859 %:;:<:49=

>&11&/. ?*,2 ?*#-@, ,*A- =
!"#$%&$''( =
;" =
>&11&/. ." #),./1+-1%' =
*+'+%,#%&" =
>&11&/. ." #),./1+-1%' =
-./%&+01"#$2 !"#$%&$''P =
;" =
>&11&/. ?*,2 ?*#-@, ,*A-P 86 BQ =
-./%&+01"#$2 *+'+%,#%&" =

(-@10 '* @1/&2'&++R# /2% )*!2'-()1/&. %-+-2%/2' ,*A-R#
.*'&*2 '* %&#.&## )*!2'-()1/&.

Comes now Counteiclaim Plaintiff William N. Schmalfelut with this Reply to
Counteiclaim Befenuant's Notion to Bismiss Counteiclaim Plaintiff's Counteiclaim.
1/)S *+ ?!(&#%&)'&*2
Counteiclaim Plaintiff has iaiseu a Feueial Question in accoiuance with 28
0.S. Coue 1SS1 which iequiies a uistiict couit to have oiiginal juiisuiction on all
civil actions aiising unuei the Constitution, laws oi tieaties of the 0niteu States.
Counteiclaim Plaintiff has auequately uemonstiateu that the Counteiclaim
Befenuants have violateu seveial laws which fall unuei the juiisuiction of this Couit,
incluuing Nalicious Piosecution unuei 42 0.S.C. 198S since the malicious
piosecution was conuucteu by Counteiclaim Befenuant Boge unuei coloi of
Naiylanu State Law which allows a piivate actoi to seek chaiges against anothei
inuiviuual without uiiect police investigation. 0nuei coloi of state law as a citizen of
the State of Naiylanu, Counteiclaim Befenuant Boge misiepiesenteu facts,
committeu peijuiy, anu outiight lieu S67 times to convince a County Commissionei
that the Counteiclaim Plaintiff hau violateu the law. In as much as all chaiges have
been uismisseu, Counteiclaim Plaintiff has leave to file this suit chaiging
Counteiclaim Befenuant Boge with Nalicious Piosecution unuei 42 0.S.C. 198S.
Inasmuch as it is not piesently known wheie Counteiclaim Befenuant
"Kienulei" lives, Counteiclaim Plaintiff also iaiseu a "uiveisity of citizenship"
question in his counteiclaim.
./1&)&*!# @(*#-)!'&*2 /2% /T!#- *+ @(*)-##
0pon fuithei infoimation, this pio se Counteiclaim Plaintiff aumits he has no
claim foi Abuse of Piocess as that toit is uefineu by the 0S Coue.
Counteiclaim Plaintiff allegeu in Paiagiaph 7S of his Amenueu Answei anu
Counteiclaim that Counteiclaim Befenuant Boge convinceu a Couit Commissionei
in Caiioll County, Naiylanu, on Febiuaiy 1S, 2u1S that Counteiclaim Plaintiff hau
commanueeieu a computei IP auuiess in Kansas City, Nissouii, anu useu it to senu
haiassing anu thieatening messages to Boge. As someone who boasts about his
knowleuge of computeis anu as a foimei employee of the uouuaiu Space Centei,
Counteiclaim Plaintiff alleges that Boge hau enough computei knowleuge to iealize
his chaige was false befoie he maue it.
Counteiclaim Plaintiff also claimeu Boge engageu in malicious piosecution
twice in the Bistiict Couit of Caiioll County by seeking a peace oiuei because
Counteiclaim Plaintiff uiu not stop placing an "" in fiont of Boge's "Twittei
Banule" on the social meuia platfoim Twittei. The uistiict couit twice tuineu Boge
away, befoie he lieu to a Caiioll County Ciicuit Couit juuge about how the simple act
of blocking Counteiclaim Plaintiff's Twittei Account woulu be tantamount to
uisabling a significant poition of his Inteinet functionality anu woulu be the same as
having to change his telephone numbei to avoiu telemaiketeis. The Ciicuit Couit
juuge, aumitting he knows nothing about Twittei, bought this iiuiculous analogy
anu issueu, then extenueu the peace oiuei.
Counteiclaim Plaintiff allegeu a total of S67 chaiges fileu by Boge against the
Counteiclaim Plaintiff, mostly foi "violating the peace oiuei." These chaiges weie
fileu at seveial uiffeient occasions, anu weie uismisseu by the State's Attoiney. A
ieasonable peison can infei that at some point anothei ieasonable peison will
iealize filing essentially the same chaiges, ovei anu ovei again, anu getting the same
iesult, will not iesult in a uiffeient iesult "this time." Counteiclaim Plaintiff alleges
these acts constitute Nalicious Piosecution.
Counteiclaim Plaintiff allegeu in his Counteiclaim, Paiagiaph 8S, that Boge
hau engageu in this conuuct well awaie of Counteiclaim Plaintiff's auvanceu
Paikinson's uisease anu awaie of the effect of unnecessaiy stiess on the
acceleiation of the natuial piogiession of the uisease. Boge fileu the instant suit two
uays aftei Counteiclaim Plaintiff followeu his neuiologist's auvice anu uioppeu the
lawsuit he hau fileu against Boge anu seveial otheis. Boge knew why Counteiclaim
Plaintiff hau uioppeu his lawsuit, anu fileu the instant suit foi no othei ieason than
to fuithei uamage the Counteiclaim Plaintiff's health anu haiass him fuithei.
%-+/./'&*2 /2% 1&T-1
Counteiclaim Plaintiff lays out a veiy cleai case foi Befamation inasmuch as
he cleaily uemonstiates uefamatoiy anu untiue statements maue by both
Counteiclaim Befenuants that weie maue to thiiu paities that causeu me significant
haim in the aiea of peisonal ieputation, ability to finu fieelance employment anu
othei aieas. Counteiclaim Befenuant Boge again misleaus the couit with his
asseition that Counteiclaim Plaintiff uiu not meet the iequiiements set uown by the
0S Supieme Couit in Ashcioft v. Iqbal, SS6 0.S. 662, 678 (2uu9). The allegations in
the counteiclaim aie not "meie aimwaving" as Boge maintains, but aie cleai anu
specific examples of uefamation
,/(/##.-2' /2% &2'-2'&*2/1 &2+1&)'&*2 *+ -.*'&*2/1 %&#'(-##
Counteiclaim Plaintiff aumits that "haiassment" was not the piopei chaige
unuei the 0S Coue. "Stalking" is moie appiopiiate chaige unuei 18 0SC 2261A
inasmuch as Counterclaim Plaintiff does not know which state Counterclaim Defendant
Krendler lives in. He alleges that Krendler used an interactive computer service to
engage in a course of conduct that caused emotional distress placing the Counterclaim
Plaintiff in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.
Mr. Hoge is an intelligent, educated man. Such a person must certainly have the
capacity to do due diligence before filing a lawsuit in a federal district court. Such due
diligence would have shown him that copyright registration is a prerequisite for getting
anything more than actual damages in a copyright infringement suit, and that having sold
one book, those damages would amount to about $3.
Mr. Hoge also needs to explain his rationale for approaching Counterclaim
Defendant Krendler with an offer to purchase the book and e-book rights to a blog
post if it was done for no other reason than to halt publication of a book that sold but one
copy. Counterclaim Plaintiff asserts it was just another weapon in Hoges toolbox used to
harm and harass Counterclaim Plaintiff, cause distress and further exacerbate
Counterclaim Plaintiffs Parkinsons disease progression.
@!2&'&U- %/./A-#
Not only has the Counteiclaim Plaintiff allegeu claims that aie woithy of
consiueiation foi punitive uamages, he feels the wanton uisiegaiu foi his health,
ieputation anu family's safety is a textbook example of why punitive uamages aie
wiitten into the law. They aie meant to uiscouiage othei actois fiom committing the
same ieckless, heeuless, uangeious ciimes against othei people.

*',-( @/('0
Ni. Boge insults the Couit's intelligence with his suggestion that the Couit
uiop the Counteiclaim so he can get a speeuy iesolution of his fiivolous copyiight
claim. In anothei motion, Counteiclaim Plaintiff will seek to giant Boge's wish foi a
speeuy iesolution to his copyiight case with a Notion to Bismiss.
Incluuing the "othei paity", Counteiclaim Befenuant "Kienulei" is ciucial in
establishing Boge's uefamatoiy anu haiassing ieasons foi biinging a copyiight suit
that he has to know he cannot win. Bow else can the Couit asceitain the ieasons foi
Boge's post-publication "puichase" of the "woilu book anu e-book iights" anu
whethei oi not theie was a legitimate tiansfei of these iights without incluuing
"Kienulei" in the suit anu Counteiclaim.
WBEREF0RE, Counteiclaim Plaintiff asks the Couit to BENY Boge's Notion
to Bismiss the Counteiclaim anu all ielief he seeks theiein.

Respectfully submitteu

%/'-%G }une 1S, 2u14

By: ________________________________________________
William N. Schmalfelut, Pio Se
66S6 Washington Blvu., Lot 71
Elkiiuge, Naiylanu 21u7S
41u-2u6-96S7 (telephone)


I ceitify unuei penalty of peijuiy that the foiegoing is tiue anu coiiect to the
best of my knowleuge anu belief.

William N. Schmalfelut

)856:V:JB68 4V #85;:J8

I ceitify that on the 1S
uay of }une, 2u14, I seiveu a copy of the foiegoing
Reply to Counteiclaim Befenuant Boge's Notion to Bismiss on William }ohn }oseph
Boge III by Piioiity Nail, Retuin Receipt Requesteu to 2u Riuge Roau, Westminstei,
NB 211S7

William N. Schmalfelut