Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMES NOW Defendant William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr. to RESPOND to the WJJ Hoges
Apart from the fact that this defendant finds it laughable that a plaintiff who lied to this
defendant to get him to skip an appeal hearing for a peace order in 2014, a plaintiff who filed
what turned out to be a bogus copyright lawsuit against this defendant in 2014, a plaintiff who
brought criminal charges against this defendant for offering to assist in any way possible to
navigate the bureaucracy at the National Institutes of Health where the defendant was employed
until his retirement when plaintiff announced in 2014 that his wife suffered from a cancer that
eventually killed her in 2017, a man who, on information and belief, took part in a scheme to
frame the defendant with a forged letter to the plaintiff to make it seem as if defendant had
violated his peace order, has the temerity to use the words good faith effort when mentioning
this issue. Defendant avers Plaintiff made NO effort to resolve this issue except to say give me
The plaintiff himself in his brief writes that the court ordered Schmalfeldt to respond to
Mr. Hoges request for production of documents. Defendant obeyed the courts order, responded
to Hoge, sent a certificate of filing and a courtesy copy of the response to the honorable judge.
under oath, he would have to admit to the truth of those statements or be guilty of perjury.
DEFENDANT CANNOT PRODUCE DOCUMENTS HE DOES NOT HAVE
Hoge may claim his requests fall within the bounds of acceptable discovery. Unlike
Hoge, defendant does not possess every document he has ever written. I do not have access to
blogs I no longer operate as they have been taken offline by the various hosting companies.
When a Twitter account is deleted or suspended, those tweets are erased from the system and are
unavailable. In fact, 19 of the Twitter accounts Hoge demands are not even Defendants
accounts.
This is what you find when you try to access any of Defendants dead blog accounts.
2
We could continue, but the court gets the idea.
In his motion, Hoge states:
3
Defendant would have gladly done so, were he asked. He wasnt asked. And again, Hoge
Same as above, was defendant asked this question during the May 5 hearing? He was not. Were
4
Same response as above from defendant, who is not a mind-reader.
Also in his motion, Hoge demands:
5
Defendant would have gladly given the same answer were he asked at the May 5 hearing.
Also in his motion, Hoge orders:
6
Defendant stands by his response. As stated, Defendant doesnt keep correspondence he no
longer requires. And Plaintiff surely must have heard of the Telephone. They are widely in use
nowadays.
Plaintiff further demands:
In WBAL v. State, the State sought a piece of videotape, not the name of a confidential source.
As Defendant has averred in the past, Mr. Hoge is asking Defendant to turn over privileged
material from confidential sources which he will not do, even if so ordered. Defendant takes his
responsibilities as a journalist very seriously. Hoge is engaging in a fishing expedition and this
7
Defendants answer remains the same. Hoge has every right to go to copyright.gov and
How kind of Mr. Hoge to relieve the honorable judge of making those decisions for himself,
declaring Defendants responses improper and finding Defendant in contempt. Lord knows
Defendant would love nothing more than to make Plaintiffs attempted railroading of the
Defendant as slick and easy for him as possible, but facts are facts, and Defendant can not
produce documents he does not possess and he will not jeopardize confidential sources just so
8
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE this Defendant, as stated above, has complied completely and to the letter
with the honorable judges order of May 5 and Mr. Hoge is kvetching because he does not like
the perfectly legal response to his demands, Schmalfeldt asks this court to deny Hoges motion
and, once again, to PLEASE bring this travesty to a halt by responding favorably to defendant
Kimberlins motion for summary judgment before Hoge wastes any more of this courts and this
AFFIDAVIT
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.