IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY MARYLAND WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE, IIT Plaintiff BRETT KIMBERLIN, et al., ) } v. } Case No. 06-C-16-070789 ) ) Defendants ) ) DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR DISREGARD DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDT’S MOTION TO AMEND HIS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ‘NOW COMES pro se defendant William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., (DEFENDANT) with this Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike or Disregard Defendant Schmalfeldt’s Motion to Amend his Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, 1. SCHMALFELDT DID, IN FACT, SERVE A COPY OF HIS MOTION TO AMEND ON MR. HOGE ‘This defendant did, in fact, serve a copy of his Motion to Amend (Docket Item 158/0) to Mr. Hoge. The plaintiff complains that the service was not completed by “any of the methods specified in Rule 1-321". In its entirety, Rule 1-321 reads as follows: (@) Generally. Except as otherwise provided in these rules or by order of court, every pleading and other paper filed after the original pleading shall be served upon each of the parties. If service is required or permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attorney, service shall be made upon the attorney unless service upon the party is ordered by the court. Service upon the attorney or upon a party shall be made by delivery of a copy or by mailing it to the address most recently stated in a pleading or paper filed by the attorney or party, or if not stated, to the last known address. Delivery of a copy within this Rule means: handing it to the attorney or to the party; or leaving it at the office of the person to be served with an individual in charge; or, if there is no one in charge, leaving it in a conspicuous place in the offices or, if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of that person with some individual of suitable age and diseretion who is residing there. Service by mail is complete upon mailing.(b) Service After Entry of Limited Appearance. Every document required to be served upon a party's attorney that is to be served after entry of a limited appearance also shall be served upon the party and, unless the attorney's appearance has been stricken pursuant to Rules 2-132 or 3- 132, upon the limited appearance attorney. Cross reference: See Rule 1-324 with respect to the sending of notices by a clerk when a limited appearance has been entered. (© Party in Default--Exceptions. No pleading or other paper after the original pleading need be served on a party in default for failure io appear except: (1)a pleading asserting a new or additional claim for relief against the party shall be served in accordance with the rules for service of original process; and (2) a request for entry of judgment arising out of an order of default under Rule 2-613 shall be served in accordance with section (a) of this Rule. (@) Requests to Clerk--Exception. A request directed to the clerk for the issuance of process or any writ need not be served on any party. Source: This Rule is derived as follows: Section (a) is derived from former Rule 306 a 1 and c and the 1980 version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 @). Section (b) is new. Section (c) is derived from former Rule 306 b and the 1980 version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 (@). Section (d) is new. Maryland Rule 1-321 (emphasis added) Rule 1-321 contains no prohibition against e-mail service, The Rule states: Service upon the attorney or upon a party shall be made by delivery of a copy or by git... Plaintiff had no problem whatsoever accepting delivery by e-mail for the first year or so of this case until he suddenly decided, without proper notification to defendant and for no reason, that he would no longer accept e-mail service, The e-mail delivery complies with the “leaving in a conspicuous place” provision of Rule 1-321. What is more conspicuous to a person who is online for the majority of his free time than his e-mail inbox? I. SCHMALFELDT SEEKS TO AMEND A PAPER THAT HAS OR WILL SHORTLY BE DOCKETED BY THE COURT Defendant was of the mistaken belief that Plaintiff, a man who has used deceit andtrickery in his past dealings with defendant, did not serve defendant with a copy of his requests for admission. That motion was returned to Defendant as it was missing a certificate of service. Defendant immediately refiled the motion, with the required certificate of service, Plaintiff waited until after the filing period had passed before posting proof of his mailing on his blog. Defendant immediately sent a Motion to Amend his Response to Hoge’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ‘As stated previously, Defendant's lateness in filing is nobody’s fault but his own. Defendant has been suffering from Parkinson’s disease for 17 years and “forgetting to do things” or “mistakenly believing you've done things you were supposed to do” are part of the memory and executive function deficits inherent with this cruel progressive neurological disorder. Plaintiff wishes to take advantage of Defendant's well-established illness by getting this, Court to accept admissions that Plaintiff knows are untrue, He secks to use the expiration of the 30-day time limit for a proper response as an excuse to admit evidence to this court that he knows is false. It would be a miscarriage of justice and possibly a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 for this court to allow defendant’s proven disability against him to gain an advantage in a lawsuit. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE this defendant once again denies the “admissions” Plaintiff alleges Defendant made by being late with his response to the Request for Admissions, and asks that this court look into its soul to ask if it will allow a duplicitous Plaintiff to use legal technicalities to enter evidence that the Plaintiff knows to be untrue. Defendant asks this court to deny Plaintiff's motion,Respectfully submitted Dated this St: Day of June, 2017 ichmalfeldt, Si William Myrtle Beach, SC 29579 (843) 429-0581 broadwaybill9476@outlook.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Certify that on the 5" day of June 2017, I served copies of the above on the following persons. William John Joseph Hoge by FIRST CLASS MAIL, Brett and Tetyana dn LW~ William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., Pro Se Kimberlin, by e-mail.AFFIDAVIT 1, 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. Tee Date: June 5, 2017 he y. William M. Schmaifeldt, Sr. Pro Se