An Ironic Day in Court

The Hoge v. Schmalfeldt  Howard County peace order petition hearing was held before Judge Timothy McCrone this morning. Judge McCrone applied res judicata to the Carroll County District Court denial of the Carroll County petition and dismissed the Howard County petition. The Carroll County appeal will be held on 7 August.

More later.

UPDATE—A couple of details about the morning …

First, Brett Kimberlin accompanied Bill Schmalfeldt to the hearing.

Second, the Cabin Boy™ asked the judge if he could ask the name of someone sitting in the courtroom. Apparently, Schmalfeldt felt the person was someone connected with the case. The judge deferred ruling on the Cabin Boy’s™ request, and the matter never came up again.

UPDATE 2—For those who are confused about what has happened, here’s a timeline of the case so far.

1 May: Peace order petition filed in Carroll County. Ex parte hearing before Judge Ellinghaus-Jones. Temporary order granted.

8 May: Final peace order hearing in Carroll County District Court. Judge Clark denies the petition for improper venue. When the court’s computer system does not allow her to transfer the case to Howard County, she suggests that I refile the petition there.

8 May: Petition refiled in Howard County. Ex parte hearing before Judge Zwaig. Petition denied because the judge believed that Schmalfeldt has a First Amendment right to comment on someone’s blog even when he has been asked not to do so.

Both District Court denials were appealed

Today: The Howard County appeal was denied because Judge McCrone applied res judicata to the 8 May Carroll County ruling. He stated that the matter belonged in Carroll County.

7 August: The de novo appeal of Judge Clark’s ruling. Stay tuned.

82 thoughts on “An Ironic Day in Court


  1. Interesting, but logical. I was always basing my opinion on the Carroll County petition being upheld. We shall see.


      • Venue is venue is venue. Maryland law says it has to be in the county where the issue occurred. Hence, Carroll County. Our gracious host appealed the HoCo ruling. They still said nope, issue is in Carroll County.

        I understand completely why John appealed in both venues. The court system is quite labyrinthine for certain. And judges are not known for being consistent with each other, so it makes it worth it to attempt the appeal in the wrong place just on the off chance you will get what is being sought.


  2. Looks like someone gets to waddle around and gloat a bit. Fortunately, he was saved from sabotaging his own case by not being allowed to open his mouth.


  3. That’s pathetic on so many levels. First, the Carroll County decision was entitled to a de novo appeal. Second, the proper application of Res Judicata would have been to cite the previous successful Peace Order application in which electronic harassment was found to be within the Peace Order statute.


  4. It sounds like the poor reviews of Judge McCrone on the Robing Room website are accurate.

    Shame Judge Kramer, who’s familiar with Schmalfeldt’s antics, didn’t draw this one.


    • I’ve said it for the longest time now… the Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt will NEVER cease harassing and abusing our Gentle Host and his family until such time as: (1) He is legally restrained from doing so (i.e., jail and/or booted off the ‘net); or, (2) He’s dead.

      It appears as if yet another Maryland judge is proving it most likely will have to come down to number two as the Stalking Sociopath Bill Schmalfeldt will never stop doing so on his own.

      *SMFH*


    • John, Aaron, et al drew Judge Micheal D. Mason who seems to rate well at that same website. Hopefully, that is a good sign.


  5. Not surprised in the least. HoCo isn’t proper venue in the first place. The De Novo trial in Carroll County on August 7th should put Bill in his place … at least temporarily as Bil will not go 24 hrs without violating an issued Judicial order … this is my informed opinion based entirely on anecdotal information gathered over the past several years on the activities of Bill.


  6. There is no res judicata. It is a different day. There are many new incidents of harassment since the prior hearing. It is not the same set of facts as the prior hearing.


    • IANAL, but I think you misunderstand their meaning.

      In an earlier PO case a HoCo judge ruled that there is no statutory basis for harassment electronically. That was appealed and overturned and the PO was granted. On May 8 a judge essentially said the same thing, that there is no statutory basis for harassment electronically. Mr. Hoge gave the specific reason why in his post above.

      I think many here are saying that res judicata should apply from the earlier decision of the appealed PO to the current appealed PO, namely, that yes, there is a statutory basis for harassment electronically. It appears in Howard County, statutory basis is whatever a judge wants it to be on any given day. Oh, and Maryland is for harassers.


  7. Second, the Cabin Boy™ asked the judge if he could ask the name of someone sitting in the courtroom. Apparently, Schmalfeldt felt the person was someone connected with the case. The judge deferred ruling on the Cabin Boy’s™ request, and the matter never came up again.

    “Your Honor, I call THAT guy!”


    • More bad advice from avvo.com
      “If this is a person whom you don’t know by name, and a person who is there to testify against you, it sounds like they will be called by the other side. Then, you have an even better situation than calling them as your own witness-you can cross examine them!”

      If you call a witness, you do not get to cross examine the witness. Only the other side cross-examines the witnesses you call.


      • In the lawyers defense, he was saying that better than calling a stranger to testify, if that stranger present is called as a witness, he can cross examine.

        What bill wants to do is identify a person present, or call a random person up to testify.
        He can’t do that, or rather, he has no right to do that. He cannot compel a person he doesn’t know to state his relationship to the dependent, interest in the case open to the public, to speak to him or to testify.


      • One would have to be a complete idiot to call a perfect stranger to the stand. You do not ask questions you don’t already know the answers to. Thus, sounds like a plan for Blob, Esq.


    • Yeah, the ruling as described makes no damn sense at all, Lack of jurisdiction isn’t a ruling on the merits, so res judicata [as described by Billy, age 7, above] couldn’t apply.


  8. OK, -now- it makes more sense. It seems Howard and Carroll County are playing a little kickball with the case. Not sure WHY though.


  9. “What we have here is a conundrum,” the judge said. “You’re appealing the same peace order in two different jurisdiction. Res Judicata says you can’t do that.”

    Ouch, Hoge.


  10. Hoge tried to argue something that was denied in another venue and thus prohibited by the doctrine of res judicata.

    I thought Hoge was supposed to be some kind of legal genius. After all, he sells coffee mugs and t-shirts with the words “res judicata” on them as if he’s an expert on the matter.

    How could he have had his petition denied?


      • It was denied because it was denied.

        Your brilliant legal scholarship and argument have me rolling on the floor in LAUGHTER! You soooooo wish to sound intelligent, but all you sound like is a fool.

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

        Indeed, the mockery continues, but not the way you wanted.


    • You weren’t in the courtroom, so you have no firsthand knowledge of my argument, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I don’t care to set you straight, but you can order a CD of the courtroom audio in the case from the Howard County Circuit Court Reporter and listen to the fine points I raised for yourself. They’re 25 bucks each.


      • Yes I do have knowledge of your argument – you tried to quibble with the judge over why your petition was denied. You seemed very insistent that the “improper venue” meant something.

        The judge then explained to you that under res judicata you couldn’t argue this in one venue after having it dismissed in another.

        You’re pathetically predictable, Hoge. You didn’t make an argument of substance nor did you raise any “fine points”.

        You lost that battle no matter how good you looked in your uniform.


        • Again, you weren’t there, and you are relying on an unreliable report. But please continue to pontificate. I enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself.


      • Considering your info comes from an adjudicated harasser and a kiddie lover, pardon us for not taking you seriously.

Leave a Reply