IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND

) Case No. 06-C-16-070789

)
) DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDTS
) RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS
v.
) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
) SCHMALFELDTS MOTION TO
) TRANSFER PLAINTIFFS CASE OR
Brett Kimberlin, et al.
) DISMISS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
Defendants
) FORUM NON CONVENIENS
______________________________________________________________________________
William John Joseph Hoge, III
Plaintiff pro se,

NOW COMES Defendant William M. Schmalfeldt Sr. of 3209 South Lake Drive,
Apartment 108, Saint Francis, WI, 53235 in the above-styled case for the sole purpose of filing
this response and without waiving any rights of jurisdiction, notice, process, service of process,
joinder, or venue. He hereby files this Response to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion
to Transfer Plaintiffs Case or Dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and states the
following:

I.

PLAINTIFF HOGE IS NOT TELLING THIS COURT THE TRUTH REGARDING THIS
DEFENDANTS STATUS REGARDING THE INSTANT SUIT.

1.

When one deals with rational adults, such as in the case of a contested lawsuit

before a state Circuit Court, a Defendant and the Court have the right to expect that the Plaintiff
will tell the truth in his motions, especially when a Plaintiff applies an Under the Penalty of
Perjury affidavit to that motion. Plaintiff WJJ Hoge III is either completely deluded or is
willfully lying to this honorable Court in the above-referenced opposition.
2.

Mr. Hoge alleges that Defendant Schmalfeldt has failed to answer the complaint

and is in default. The finding of default is a decision that must be made by the Court, not Mr.
Hoge. As Defendant Schmalfeldt has two motions before this Court that have yet to be ruled
upon, he is not required to answer Mr. Hoges spurious complaint until 15 days after this Court

rules on Defendant Schmalfeldts final two motions. Mr. Hoge seeks to replace the judge on the
bench and gavel his own sense of justice as the law in the instant case. Defendant Schmalfeldt
does not believe this is the act of a man in full control of his mental facilities, and again
strenuously renews his request for an expeditious decision by the Court on the Compulsory
Mental Examination so requested by Schmalfeldt attached to his original Motion to
Transfer/Dismiss Under the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens.
2.

Hoge submits that Defendant Schmalfeldt is asking for relief the Court cannot

grant, under Rule 2-327. Once again, Hoge ignores black and white law as spelled out in Rule 2327(c), which states:
(c) Convenience of the parties and witnesses. On motion of any party, the court
may transfer any action to any other circuit court where the action might have
been brought if the transfer is for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
serves the interests of justice.
3.

Hoges case against Defendant Schmalfeldt could have and should have been

brought in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Or, it could have been brought in Montgomerhy
County, where Defendants Brett and Tanya Kimberlin reside. Or, it could have been brought in
California, where Defendant William Ferguson resides. Or it could have been brought in
Alabama, where Defendant Matt Osborne resides. Who knows if the various John Does Hoge
includes in his wandering and expansive complaint even exist, let alone where they reside?
4.

Once again, as he did in his Motion to Oppose Defendant Schmalfeldts Motion to

Dismiss for Improper Venue, Hoge blatantly rewrites standing black letter law to suit his whims.
He claims in his most recent opposition:
Rule 2-3217 does not authorize a transfer out of the State. Because this Court
cannot grant the relief Schmalfeldt seeks, his Motion to Transfer should be
denied.

5.

The above mentioned Rule does not authorize or forbid the transfer of a case to another

state district court. On the issue of transfer, it merely states:

the court may transfer any action to any other circuit court where the
action might have been brought if the transfer is for the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and serves the interests of justice. (Emphasis added)
6.

Of telling significance in Hoges motion is his failure to say a word about

convenience of the parties or serving the interests of justice. Instead, referencing the
principal reason Defendant Schmalfeldt is asking this court to transfer or dismiss this case under
the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Hoge results once again to lying to this honorable Court
about the Defendants rationale and things he claims to have personally witnessed.
7.

In footnote (1), Page 2 of his opposition, Hoge makes this blatantly untrue

statement:
1 Schmalfeldt claims that he wishes to avoid traveling in part because of the
danger
metal detector pose to his implanted medical devices. Mr. Hoge
has watched Schmalfeldt
successfully pass through the metal detectors at the
entrances to the District Courthouse, the Circuit Courthouse, and the Circuit
Courthouse Annex in Westminster. According to the Milwaukee County
Government website, one must pass through a metal detector to
enter the
Milwaukee County Courthouse. See
http://countymilwaukee.gov/Courts/Jury/FAQ.htm#FAQ3_Q13.
8.

As a result of the Deep Brain Stimulation surgery which Defendant Schmalfeldt

went through as a volunteer in a Clinical Trial at the University of Vanderbilt Medical Center in
Nashville, Tennessee, in June 2007, Defendant Schmalfeldt is instructed to studiously avoid
these sorts of metal detectors. Exhibit A displays the obverse and reverse of a card given to
Defendant Schmalfeldt that he shows to security personnel to avoid having to go through metal
detectors. Mr. Hoge has never seen Defendant Schmalfeldt go through a metal detector in
Winchester or anywhere else because Mr. Schmalfeldt refuses to do so, and security personnel
honor his request by taking him to a secure area and running the wand over him to see if he has

weapons. TSA agents at airports give him the same wand treatment and a thorough pat
down. Exhibit B explains the dangers of metal detectors to the DBS recipient.
9.

Nor is the metal detector a reason Defendant Schmalfeldt faces danger by

making a long, unaccompanied trip from Milwaukee to Westminster for Mr. Hoges predatory,
vexatious and vindictive lawsuit. Other dangers presented by unaccompanied travel include:
a.

Defendants lack of balance while standing or walking.

b.

Defendants physical pain caused by long periods of sitting in cramped spaces.

c.

The non-availability of Defendants rescue button, as mentioned in his original

motion.

d.

Being alone and unattended as a patient with Stage IV Parkinsons disease.

10.

Mr. Hoges apparent aim here is to cause Defendant Schmalfeldt as much

physical and mental distress as possible. Yet another reason why Defendant Schmalfeldt again
asks this Court to take urgent notice of his recently filed petition to subject Mr. Hoge to a
compulsory mental examination to get to the root of this insatiable need to punish Defendant
Schmalfeldt and to lie under oath in his efforts to do so.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Defendant Schmalfeldt begs the court to DENY Hoges Opposition to
Schmalfeldts Motion to Transfer or Dismiss Plaintiffs Case Under the Doctrine of Forum Non
Conveniens, and allow Mr. Schmalfeldt to either answer Hoges fanciful claims from the
comfort of his home base, or ideally, have the complaint dismissed. Again, Schmalfeldt asks this
Court to consider sanctions against Hoge for lying and altering black letter law in his motions,
and urges a speedy mental evaluation as requested in Schmalfeldts petition for same.

Respectfully Submitted this 1st Day of July, 2015.

/s/William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.

William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.
3209 S. Lake Dr., Apt. 108
Saint Francis, WI 53235
414-249-4379
bschmalfeldt@twc.com
Pro Se Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this pleading has on this day been sent by electronic mail to
WJJ Hoge III and other named defendants by agreement between the parties.

/s/William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.

William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.
Pro Se Defendant

EXHIBIT A
CARD ISSUED TO DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDT BY MEDTRONIC, THE MAKER OF
HIS IMPLANTED DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION DEVICES.

EXHIBIT B
The dangers of Metal Detectors to Patients with Deep Brain Stimulation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4413473/

EXHIBIT C
Story in US World and News Report regarding Defendant Schmalfeldt and his Involvement in
the Vanderbilt DBS Clinical Trial.