You are on page 1of 3

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND BILL SCHMALFELDT Petitioner v.

WILLIAM HOGE Respondent * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Petition Docket 320 September Term 2013

ANSWER TO SUPPLEMENT TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Respondent, WILLIAM HOGE, through his attorney, Zoa D. Barnes, Hill, Barnes & McInerney, LLC in filing this Answer states as follows: QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. A Peace Order does not prohibit a journalist from using twitter to inform citizens about a public figure and therefore is not a conflict with or violates the first amendment right to free speech 2. A Peace Order in this case does not conflict with the plain language of the Peace Order Statute by prohibiting online contact. 3. That Petitioners work is not that of a journalist and does not fall under the Peace Order exception of peaceable activity and legal purpose. 4. It is irrelevant if a Peace Order prohibiting a journalist from contacting the subject of a story conflicts with the rules of ethics pertaining to journalists.

5. The Peace Order issued by a Circuit Court judge against a disabled person under the threat of imprisonment does not conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

LEGAL BASIS The Maryland Peace Order statute does not have exceptions for persons of certain status. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc., 3-1501. Therefore, special rights and privileges are not accorded to self-described journalists, alleged public figures or the disabled. All are equally subject to compliance with the harassment laws of the State of Maryland. Furthermore, there is no First Amendment issue as Petitioner alleges. The Courts Order does not prevent Petitioner from writing about Respondent. It only prevents him from directly contacting or attempting to contact Respondent whether by phone, mail, e-mail, or any other means. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc., 3-1505 (d). Tweeting that is sent to the victim directly is a contact. Petitioners argument that, because the Peace Order statute does not reference a more narrowly described definition of harassment, specifically Misuse of Electronic Mail, Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law 3-805 , tweeting or other electronic contacts can not be harassment is misplaced. The Peace Order statute references the broadest and most inclusive definition of harassment under the criminal code, without limitations or exceptions. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 3-1503 (a) (6), Md. Code Ann., Crim Law 3-803. The establishment of Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law 3-805 is for the purpose of allowing the inclusion of additional criminal charges when circumstances so warrant and not to narrow the relief of persons being harassed in the context of a Peace Order.

Petitioners allegation that the harassing contacts to Respondent were for legal purpose and a peaceable activity is solely based upon his self-proclamation that he is a journalist. No such exception exists and journalists, as with all citizens, are still subject to the harassment laws of Maryland. Petitioner fails to comply with Md. Rule 8-303 in his Petition. Furthermore, his statements are neither factual, material or relevant to the Peace Order statute from which he appeals. No new issues of controversy have been raised, no new legal issues are alleged and no public interest is involved. Accordingly, Respondent respectfully requests that Petitioners Petition for Writ of Certiorari be DENIED.

___________________________________ Zoa D. Barnes Hill, Barnes & McInerney, LLC 23 N Center Street Westminster, MD 21157 (410) 840-8900 Attorney for Respondent

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ___________ day of _____________________, 2013, a copy of this Answer to Supplement to Petition for Writ of Certiorari was delivered via first class mail, postage prepaid to the following:

Bill Schmalfeldt 6636 Washington Blvd. #71 Elkridge, MD 21075 Petitioner ________________________________ Zoa D. Barnes