William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.

,
Plaintiff,

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR HOWARD COUNTY,

MARYLAND

v.
William John Joseph Hoge, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 13-C-15-102498 OT

DEFENDANT HOGES MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW Defendant William John Joseph Hoge and moves this Court to
dismiss the above captioned matter for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(b)(2). In support of his motion Mr.
Hoge states as follows:

BACKGROUND

The instant complaint is an attempt to breathe life into a suit filed by

Plaintiff in U. S. District Court for the District of Maryland that was dismissed
(Case No. 15-CV-00315), in part, for want of subject matter jurisdiction. As in that
first attempt, Plaintiff again makes allegations that Mr. Hoge did things that are
not torts. As such, they are not matters that are properly brought before this Court.
Plaintiff also attempts to allege actual torts committed by Mr. Hoge, but in every
instance he fails to properly allege the elements of any of the torts. Moreover, he
1

fails to state any damages that he has suffered. With no damages alleged, he fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the instant lawsuit should be
dismissed.

PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PROPERLY ALLEGE HARASSMENT, FALSE LIGHT INVASION

OF PRIVACY, AND DEFAMATION PER SE

Plaintiffs claim of defamation is defective, relying on conclusory allegations.

While Maryland has not explicitly adopted the pleading standards outlined by the
Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal1, our case law does require allegations to be
well-pleaded. When testing the sufficiency of a pleading under a motion to dismiss,
a court should consider whether the facts alleged within the complaints four
corners and any accompanying exhibits allow for relief to be granted. It is not
enough that the plaintiff's allegations and the reasonable inferences from them are
consistent and supporting, however. A trial courts dismissal of a complaint will be
affirmed if that complaint nevertheless fails to state a claim. Pendleton v. State,
398 Md. 447, 921 A.2d 196, 204 (2007). While the court must consider a complaints

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662 (2009) establish a requirement that in order to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted a pleading must not be merely a threadbare recital of the elements
of a tort but must be plausible. In keeping with that principle a court considering a
motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that are not entitled
to the assumption of truth because they are no more than conclusions.
1

pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it reviews allegations of fact
and inferences deducible from them, not merely conclusory charges. Berman v.
Karvounis, 308 Md. 259, 518 A. 2d 726 (1987). Finally, the Court should consider
only well-pleaded facts. Allegations contradicted by exhibits or other allegations in
the same complaint should be disregarded.
In order to prove defamation a plaintiff must show that the alleged
defamatory statements were false. [T]ruth is no longer an affirmative defense to
be established by the defendant, but instead the burden of proving falsity rests
upon the plaintiff. Metromedia, Inc. v. Hillman, 285 Md. 161, 169 (1979).
Plaintiffs conclusory allegations do not make a plausible case that any statement
attributed to Mr. Hoge is false.
Consider the allegations found in paragraph 51 of the complaint. Plaintiff
alleges that the homoerotic image in question is not obscene because it is
photoshopped and does not show actual penetration.2 Given Plaintiffs own
description of the image, Mr. Hoge believes that it is reasonable to hold the opinion
that the image meets the Miller test, i.e., that it lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 23 (1973), but he also
notes that it would also be reasonable to refer to the image as being obscene in the
Those are not the legal standards for obscenity in Maryland. When there is a
question of obscenity, the material in question speaks for itself and is reviewed
under the Supreme Courts Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) standard.
Mangum v. Md. St. Bd. of Censors, 273 Md. 176 (1974).
2

commonly used sense of being offensive or disgusting to accepted standards of

morality and decency or being repugnant. Expression of such an opinion is not
defamatory.
The picture was presented as evidence in a 9 December, 2013, hearing for a
peace order extension in Circuit Court for Carroll County. Hoge v. Schmalfeldt,
Case No. 06-C-13-0063659 (Md. Cir.Ct. Carroll Co. 2013). Judge Stanfield granted
the extension, in part, because he found that publication of the obscene image on
the Internet was evidence of harassment of Mr.Hoge by Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiffs
assertion that the image is not obscene is barred by collateral estoppel.
Additionally, Plaintiff suggestion that Mr. Hoge was 19 years old when the
photograph of him in question was taken is purely conclusory. The date of
publication of a university year book doesnt not establish when a file photo used in
the yearbook was taken.
Moreover, Plaintiff does have a history of altering documents. Exhibit A
shows the linked post referred to in Plaintiffs block quote in paragraph 51.
None of the allegations contained in paragraph 51 are well-pleaded.
In paragraph 54 Plaintiff asserts that the blog comment in question (which
he sent to Hogewash!) does not contain an extortionate threat. Since Plaintiff has
provided a copy as his Exhibit F, the Court can read it and see that it does contain a
threat to instigate charges under 17 U.S.C. 506 against Mr. Hoge if he did not

provide information concerning the identity of Paul Krendler. Plaintiffs own

exhibit refutes his claim. Finally, the particular statement about which Plaintiff
complains in paragraph 54 was made in an Application for Statement of Charges
and is, therefore, privileged and not subject to a claim of defamation. Paragraph 54
is not well-pleaded and, given that it is contradicted by Plaintiffs Exhibit F, it is not
entitled to a presumption of truth.
Plaintiff does not deny that he sent the Digital Millennium CopyRight Act
(DMCA) notice underlying the allegations in paragraphs 52 and 53. Rather, he
claims that Mr. Hoge misrepresented the contents of the notice. In fact, it is
Plaintiff who has misrepresented the email Mr. Hoge received from WordPress by
providing only a portion of what Mr. Hoge published. See Plaintiffs Exhibit G. The
entire original post from Hogewash! (readers comments redacted) is shown in
Exhibit B. Furthermore, given the context of the contemporaneous extortionate
threat made by Plaintiff, the best light for viewing this claim is not favorable.
Again, nothing in paragraphs 52 or 53 is well-pleaded, and nothing in them is
entitled to a presumption of truth.
With respect to fault, Plaintiff has not properly alleged malice. In paragraph
71 he tries to lower the bar from the actual malice standard of New York Times v.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-280 (1964) to one of negligence or due diligence.
Plaintiff tries to base his reasoning on Young v. Medatlantic Lab, 125 Md.App. 299,

725 A.2d 572, 574-575 (1999) and Pittman v. Atlantic Realty, 127 Md.App. 255, 732
A.2d 912, n. 6 (1999). However, neither case is applicable to the establishing fault
in a defamation lawsuit. Young deals with with a question related to a statute of
limitations, and the portion cited by Plaintiff refers to a discovery issue. Pittman
deals with the admissibility of affidavits, and the Court of Special Appeals decision
cited by Plaintiff was struck down by the Court of Appeals. Pittman v. Atlantic
Realty, 359 Md. 513, 754 A.2d 1030, 1031 (2000). Thus, the Court should hold
Plaintiffs pleadings to the New York Times standard. When held to that standard,
they fail.
With respect to damages, Plaintiff has tried to rely on a claim of defamation
per se in order to avoid having to show how he was injured. The Court does not
need to concern itself with the distinction between per quod or per se in this case
because Plaintiffs failure to show that any of Mr. Hoges statements were false is
fatal to any claim of defamation.
With respect to false light invasion of privacy, Plaintiff fails to allege with
particularity the elements of any such claim. Plaintiff has not alleged with
particularity which statements supposedly made by Mr. Hoge placed him in a false
light. Additionally, he has not stated any actual damages or expenses incurred
because of any alleged portrayal in a false light.
Harassment is not a tort in and of itself.

Given the utter lack of a single well-pleaded allegation of defamation or false

light, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs First Cause of Action for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(b)(2).

PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PROPERLY ALLEGE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY

The only place where Plaintiff mentions malicious prosecution in his Second
Cause of Action is the section caption. In any event, Plaintiff is barred by collateral
estoppel from making any claim for malicious prosecution related to the peace
orders protecting Mr. Hoge or to Plaintiffs violations of them. Each Application for
Statement of Charges filed by Mr. Hoge because of harassment or peace order
violations by Plaintiff was reviewed by a District Court Commissioner who found
probable cause to charge Plaintiff. As to a claim that charges were brought for some
purpose other than bringing Plaintiff to justice, Mr. Hoge notes that the peace order
underpinning the bulk of the charges was extended by Judge Stansfield after
finding that hundreds of the incidents complained of by Mr. Hoge were violations of
the peace order.3 Plaintiff exhausted all his appeals, and the original peace order

Hoge v. Schmalfeldt, Case No. 06-C-13-0063659 (Md. Cir.Ct. Carroll Co. 2013),
Schmalfeldt v. Hoge, Petition Docket No. 320, Sept. 2013 (Md.), cert. denied 21
October, 2013 and Schmalfeldt v. Hoge, Petition Docket No. 29, Sept. 2014 (Md.),
cert. denied 19 June, 2014.
3

and its extension stood. A second peace order was issued against Plaintiff.4 As a
result of a petition for contempt of that order, Judge Stansfield has warned Plaintiff
that there should be no future violations. Exhibit C. An Application for Statement
of Charges for a violation of the second peace order was filed by the Carroll County
Sheriffs Office on 16February, 2015.5 Plaintiff has been charged with one count of
failure to comply with a peace order, and his trial date is 16 April, 2015.6
Conspiracy is not a tort and is not a cause of action. However, Plaintiffs
allegation of a conspiracy among the Defendants places them in privity with one
another for certain defenses such as collateral estoppel. Mathews v. Cassidy Turley
Maryland, Inc., 435 Md. 584, 80 A.3d 269, 294 (2013). Thus, the Court should apply
the Mr. Hoges arguments for dismissal to the other Defendants as well in the
interest of judicial economy.
Given that Plaintiff has not bothered to plead a case for malicious
prosecution, the Court should dismiss his Second Cause of Action for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(b)(2).

Hoge v. Schmalfeldt, Case No. 06-C-14-0067023 (Md. Cir.Ct. Carroll Co. 2014).

In paragraph 29 of the complaint Plaintiff admits to the email contact that is the
basis of the Application for Statement of Charges.
5

District Court Case No. 6S00064882.

8

PLAINTIFFS THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION DOES NOT MENTION MR. HOGE

Since Plaintiffs Third Cause of Action does not mention Mr. Hoge, it should
be dismissed with respect to him for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(b)(2).

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT A CAUSE OF ACTION

Even if intentional infliction of emotional distress were a cause of action,

Plaintiff simply does not allege its elements. Nothing in the complaint properly
alleges intentional or reckless behavior by Mr. Hoge that was extreme or
outrageous. Plaintiff has not alleged, except in the most conclusory manner, any
causal connection between Mr. Hoges actions and any distress Plaintiff may have
suffered. Nor has he established that any of his alleged distress was severe. See
Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. 560 (1977). More fundamental, Plaintiff has not properly
alleged that Mr. Hoge has committed any tortuous conduct. Under Maryland law,
intentional infliction of emotional distress is an element of damage, not an
independent tort. Hamilton v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 66 Md.App. 46 (1986). The
Maryland Court of Appeals adds, In Maryland, recovery of damages for emotional
distress must arise out of tortious conduct. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Albright, 433 Md.

303, 71 A.3d 30, 58 (2013). Since all of Plaintiffs alleged torts fail, he cannot
recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Therefore, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Maryland Rule
2-322(b)(2).

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs complaint is a muddled mess which does not present a wellpleaded case. While Plaintiff is due some consideration because of his pro se status,
that status is not a license to ignore the requirement to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Nor does his pro se status oblige the Court to try to tease
some meaning out of a poorly crafted filing. As Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the
9th Circuit has observed, Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the
briefs. Independent Towers of Washington v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th
Cir. 2003).
WHEREFORE Mr. Hoge asks the Court to DISMISS the instant lawsuit for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Maryland Rule
2-322(b)(2) and for such other relief as it may deem just and proper.

10

Date: 20 March, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
(410) 596-2854
himself@wjjhoge.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 20th day of March, 2015, I mailed a copy of this filing to
William M. Schmalfeldt via First Class U. S. Mail.

William John Joseph Hoge

VERIFICATION
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and that all exhibits attached are
true and correct copies of the originals.

William John Joseph Hoge

11

Exhibit A
Forgery?
Downloaded from http://hogewash.com/2013/09/26/forgery/ on 20 March, 2015.
The post presents an analysis of an altered document posted on the Internet by
Plaintiff. 10 pages of reader comments have been redacted.

Forgery? | hogewash

20150320, 00:35

hogewash
Never pick a fight with a man who buys pixels by the terabyte.

Forgery?
Posted on 26 September, 2013
30

Rate This

Bill Schmalfeldt has tweeted this concerning my membership in the Society of Professional Journalists

and included this image with his tweet.

http://hogewash.com/2013/09/26/forgery/

Page 1 of 14

Forgery? | hogewash

20150320, 00:35

His image has some interesting properties. For example, its exactly the same dimension (450 X 572 pixels) as this
image I published.

http://hogewash.com/2013/09/26/forgery/

Page 2 of 14

Forgery? | hogewash

20150320, 00:35

There are also some differences. Take a look at the Join Date shown on the Cabin Boys version. Now, look at the
redaction bar for the same information in mine. The reason the bar is so long on mine is that the date and time were
shown when I screen capped the information. If Schmalfeldt had removed the redaction bar from mine, the time stamp
should be visible.
Also, the numbers shown for the Join Date on the Cabin Boys version are slightly larger than those shown on the Birth
Date line. Its almost is if someone pasted a large white rectangle over my redaction bar and then typed in a date with
almost, but not quite, the right size font.
BTW, no one would have access to the my membership maintenance page without my username and password.
Thats one of the reasons why the last part of my username is obscured.

http://hogewash.com/2013/09/26/forgery/

Page 3 of 14

Forgery? | hogewash

20150320, 00:35

Hmmmmm.
UPDATEOne commenter asks why the Join Date isnt in a box. It isnt a changeable item on the form so it doesnt
have a data entry box.
Speaking of boxes, here are the Birth Date and Join Date from the Cabin Boys version with the small box
superimposed around them. Note that the slash marks for the Birth Date do not extend the full height of the box, but
those for the Join Date do. Close inspection will also show that the numerals are of different height as well.

UPDATE 2The Gentle Reader will kindly note that I have not said that the Cabin Boy made any representation that
the image he posted was of my actual information. I very carefully quoted him by reproducing his tweet. Still, the
question remainsis what he posted a forgery?
UPDATE 3The Cabin Boy says that his personal blog posts and tweets arent journalism. Thats probably what he
thinks is the loophole that gets around this part of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics with respect to
that modified image:
Journalists should: Never distort the content of news photos or video.

SHARE THIS:

Twitter

Reblog

Facebook

LinkedIn

Email

Print

More

Like

One blogger likes this.

R E L AT E D

#BillSchmalfeldt is a Liar
In "Science"

Hoge v. Schmalfeldt
In "First Amendment"

DABDA
In "Blogging"

This entry was posted in Crime, Team Kimberlin, Trolls and tagged Cabin Boy Bill Schmalfeldt, SPJ by wjjhoge.
Bookmark the permalink [http://hogewash.com/2013/09/26/forgery/] .
33 THOUGHTS ON FORGERY?

http://hogewash.com/2013/09/26/forgery/

Page 4 of 14

Reader Comments Redacted.

Exhibit B
#BillSchmalfeldt Files Fraudulent DMCA Takedown Notice
Downloaded from http://hogewash.com/2014/07/14/billschmalfeldt-files-fraudulentdmca-takedown-notice/ on 19 March, 2015.
The post consists of the email sent to Mr. Hoge by WordPress, his website hosting
provider, and a blog comment submitted to Hogewash! by Plaintiff. 19-1/2 pages of
reader comments have been redacted.

#BillSchmalfeldt Files Fraudulent DMCA Takedown Notice | hogewash

20150319, 19:33

hogewash
Never pick a fight with a man who buys pixels by the terabyte.

#BillSchmalfeldt Files Fraudulent DMCA

Takedown Notice
Posted on 14 July, 2014
17

Rate This

Hi there,
Weve received the DMCA notice (http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130) below regarding material
published on your WordPress.com site, which means the complainant is asserting ownership of this material and
claiming that your use of it is not permitted by him/her or the law. As required by the DMCA, we have disabled public
access to the material. Please note that republishing the material without permission from the copyright holder will
result in the permanent suspension of your WordPress.com site and/or account.
Repeated incidents of copyright infringement will also lead to the permanent suspension of your WordPress.com site.
We certainly dont want that to happen, so please delete any other material you may have uploaded for which you
dont have the necessary rights and and refrain from uploading additional material that you do not have permission to
upload. Although we cant provide legal advice, were happy to point you to copyright law resources that might help
you make this determination.
Alternatively, if you believe that this notice was received in error, or if you believe your usage of this material falls under
the Fair Use provision of US Copyright Law, its important that you submit a formal DMCA counter-notice to ensure that
your WordPress.com site remains operational. A valid counter-notice will result in the material being returned to your
site in 10 business days if the complainant does not reply with legal action.
Please refer to the following pages for more information:

http://hogewash.com/2014/07/14/billschmalfeldt-files-fraudulent-dmca-takedown-notice/

Page 1 of 30

#BillSchmalfeldt Files Fraudulent DMCA Takedown Notice | hogewash

20150319, 19:33

http://en.support.wordpress.com/counter-notice/
http://automattic.com/dmca/dmca-counter-notice/
After the notice, there is a list of the material claimed to be in breach of copyright, with the action that we have taken on
this occasion. This is the response that we have sent the complainant.
Thank you.
BEGIN NOTICE
Dear Designated Agent:
This will probably be a bit more personal than the usual DMCA Takedown Request you receive. I am in the midst of a
Copyright Infringement Suit filed by William John Joseph Hoge III, who operates a WordPress.com blog called
Hogewash.com.
Before I detail the nature of this takedown, I have a question. Who owns the copyright on material published on a
WordPress.com blog? Your Terms of Service make it appear that WordPress.com owns the ultimate copyright. Am I
correct in that assumption? Or can a user of a WordPress.com blog write up his own Terms of Service that seem to
contradict the WordPress.com ToS. As you peruse this Takedown request, I invite you to review Mr. Hoges terms at
http://hogewash.com/the-fine-print/
My name is William M. Schmalfeldt, [redacted], Elkridge, Maryland, USA, 21075
410-[redacted]
bschmalfeldt@[redacted]
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized
by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or
am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
I acknowledge that a copy of this infringement notice, including any contact information I provided above (address,
telephone number, and email address), will be forwarded to the user who uploaded the content at issue.
I electronically sign below.
William M. Schmalfeldt
http://hogewash.com/2014/07/14/billschmalfeldt-files-fraudulent-dmca-takedown-notice/

Page 2 of 30

#BillSchmalfeldt Files Fraudulent DMCA Takedown Notice | hogewash

20150319, 19:33

END NOTICE
1. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/31/orion-in-3d/
In accordance with the requirements set forth by the DMCA, we have disabled access to the material identified as
infringing. Please note that we have notified the user who uploaded the material to provide them an opportunity to
formally challenge this removal. If the user decides to submit a counter-notice you will be notified immediately.
2. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/30/serpens-cloud-core/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
3. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/29/astro-proam/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
4. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/28/galactic-magnetism/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
5. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/26/in-the-eagle-nebula/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
6. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/25/thats-no-space-station-its-a-moon/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
7. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/23/a-new-crater-on-mars/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
8. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/21/m60-ucd1/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
9. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/20/cygnus-ob2-9/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.

http://hogewash.com/2014/07/14/billschmalfeldt-files-fraudulent-dmca-takedown-notice/

Page 3 of 30

#BillSchmalfeldt Files Fraudulent DMCA Takedown Notice | hogewash

20150319, 19:33

10. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/19/the-giant-red-spot/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
11. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/18/the-not-so-giant-red-spot/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
12. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/16/neptune-triton-rings-and-stars/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
13. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/15/inside-the-flame-nebula-2/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
14. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/14/pan-and-zoom/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
15. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/13/a-stellar-survivor/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
16. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/12/the-grand-canyon-of-mars/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
17. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/11/infrared-andromeda/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
18. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/10/coronal-hole-squared/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
19. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/09/b-and-c-in-uv/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.

http://hogewash.com/2014/07/14/billschmalfeldt-files-fraudulent-dmca-takedown-notice/

Page 4 of 30

#BillSchmalfeldt Files Fraudulent DMCA Takedown Notice | hogewash

20150319, 19:33

20. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/08/inside-the-flame-nebula/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
21. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/07/outbound/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
22. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/06/53-years-ago-yesterday/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
23. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/05/thats-no-moon-its-a-space-station/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
24. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/04/whats-up-for-may/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
25. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/03/m61-2/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
26. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/02/26749/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
27. http://hogewash.com/2014/05/01/the-pleiades-2/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
28. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/30/rings-and-shadows/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
29. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/29/missed-it-by-that-much-2/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.

http://hogewash.com/2014/07/14/billschmalfeldt-files-fraudulent-dmca-takedown-notice/

Page 5 of 30

#BillSchmalfeldt Files Fraudulent DMCA Takedown Notice | hogewash

20150319, 19:33

30. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/27/asteroids-3/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
31. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/26/brown-dwarf/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
32. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/25/m5/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
33. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/24/arp-81/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
34. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/23/m101-in-ir/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
35. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/21/just-a-bit-blurry/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
36. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/20/mariner-4-and-mars/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
37. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/19/the-tadpole/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
38, http://hogewash.com/2014/04/18/surveyor-3-and-apollo-12/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
39. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/16/new-moon-2/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.

http://hogewash.com/2014/07/14/billschmalfeldt-files-fraudulent-dmca-takedown-notice/

Page 6 of 30

#BillSchmalfeldt Files Fraudulent DMCA Takedown Notice | hogewash

20150319, 19:33

40. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/15/a-horsehead-of-a-different-color-2/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
41. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/12/mergers-and-acquisitions-2/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
42. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/11/el-gordo-2/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
43. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/09/get-ready-for-the-eclipse/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
44. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/05/a-solar-flare-2/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
45. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/04/themis/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
46. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/03/mars-in-opposition/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
47. http://hogewash.com/2014/04/01/encountering-hyperion/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
48. http://hogewash.com/2014/03/31/ios-true-colors/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
49. http://hogewash.com/2014/03/30/hollows-on-mercury/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.

http://hogewash.com/2014/07/14/billschmalfeldt-files-fraudulent-dmca-takedown-notice/

Page 7 of 30

#BillSchmalfeldt Files Fraudulent DMCA Takedown Notice | hogewash

20150319, 19:33

50. http://hogewash.com/2014/03/29/1000-km-closer-to-mars/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
51. http://hogewash.com/2014/03/27/you-cant-see-it-from-here/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
52. http://hogewash.com/2014/03/25/breaking-up-is-hard-to-do/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
53. http://hogewash.com/2014/03/24/confused-hubble/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
54. http://hogewash.com/2014/03/22/a-seyfert-galaxy/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
55. http://hogewash.com/2014/03/21/coming-attractions-lunar-eclipses/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
56. http://hogewash.com/2014/03/20/measuring-a-black-holes-spin/
The content at issue is not hosted on WordPress.com. Please file a takedown notice with the appropriate third party.
57. http://hogewash.com/2014/03/19/the-moons-north-pole/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
58. http://hogewash.com/2014/03/18/the-monkey-head-nebula/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.
59. http://hogewash.com/2014/03/17/hubble-nets-a-butterfly/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.

http://hogewash.com/2014/07/14/billschmalfeldt-files-fraudulent-dmca-takedown-notice/

Page 8 of 30

#BillSchmalfeldt Files Fraudulent DMCA Takedown Notice | hogewash

20150319, 19:33

70. http://hogewash.com/2014/03/02/surveyor-1/
Access to the content in question has been disabled, according to the requirements of the DMCA.

Clicky Steve | Community Guardian | WordPress.com

http://hogewash.com/2014/07/14/billschmalfeldt-files-fraudulent-dmca-takedown-notice/

Page 10 of 30

#BillSchmalfeldt Files Fraudulent DMCA Takedown Notice | hogewash

20150319, 19:33

SHARE THIS:

Twitter

Reblog

Facebook

LinkedIn

Email

Print

More

Like

4 bloggers like this.

R E L AT E D

Coming Attractions
In "Blogging"

#BillSchmalfeldt and the

DMCA, Again
In "Blogging"

Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

In "Blogging"

This entry was posted in Crime, Team Kimberlin, Trolls and tagged DMCA, Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt by
wjjhoge. Bookmark the permalink [http://hogewash.com/2014/07/14/billschmalfeldt-files-fraudulent-dmcatakedown-notice/] .
60 THOUGHTS ON #BILLSCHMALFELDT FILES FRAUDULENT DMCA TAKEDOWN NOTICE

Jackie Wellfonder
on 14 July, 2014 at 10:32 said:

12

Rate This

Geezcant he find another hobby already??

redacted
A Reader
on 14 July, 2014 at 10:42 said:

11

Rate This

So, let me get this straight.

1. BS has accused you of the felony of claiming NASA material as your
own via copyright.
2. BS files a DMCA takedown notice with WordPress in which he
declares, under penalty of perjury, that he is owns NASA copyrights.

http://hogewash.com/2014/07/14/billschmalfeldt-files-fraudulent-dmca-takedown-notice/

Page 11 of 30

Exhibit C
Circuit Court Opinion