Pro Se Tip

Now that Judge Hecker has ruled on all of the open motions in the Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit, I’ll begin commenting on some of those motions.

If an order of default had been entered against the Cabin Boy™ on Tuesday, he would have had 30 days to file a motion to vacate. Then I would have had 15 days to oppose his motion. Then the judge would have ordered a hearing with at least 30 days notice. At the end of the delay of possibly 75 days or more, the judge likely would have found that it was equitable to waive default for an incompetent pro se defendant such as The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt. At that point, he would have been given 15 days to file an answer.

By simply denying the Cabin Boy’s™ motions to dismiss and ordering him to file his answer within 15 days, Judge Hecker managed to keep the case moving along briskly. I doubt that this case will drag on the way most of the cases file by The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin have. I suspect it will be on the rocket docket.

Now that the Cabin Boy™ has answered, discovery can begin as soon as the stay on discovery expires on 17 October. Being able to proceed to discovery from Cabin Boy™ is actually more advantageous for me than having to slog through a default. It’s also the outcome I expected based on my research on how Maryland courts have typically handled similar cases.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

25 thoughts on “Pro Se Tip


  1. “Bill Schmalfeldt, Ed ‏@Leonidas_BU

    What’s more the aforementioned lying sack of shit @wjjhoge says it is to his benefit that his own motion was denied. And people believe him”

    so, a guy who rolls in his own filth, daily with his worship of pedophiles, his edgy child rape porn comedies, forgot that spoliaton is going to bite him in the ass.


    • DUMBFUCK who submitted a motion to transfer this state case TO ANOTHER STATE says his opponent couldn’t possibly believe a motion he submitted might not prevail?

      I gotta sit down.


  2. OK

    First, John kindly bought me dinner the night before the hearing and did indeed predict that the motion for default would be denied. In other words, he has witnesses to his having foreseen what happened.

    Second, the “victory” won by Willie was that the judge in essence ruled that he would waive the rule about a single motion to dismiss because Willie did not understand it. (The judge specifically mentioned whether Willie “intended” to violate the rule on a single motion to dismiss and found no such intent on Willie’s part.) The judge then quickly denied Willie’s motions AND TOLD HIM HE HAD 15 DAYS TO FILE AN ANSWER. That is, Willie can’t delay the clock again by filing more motions to dismiss, and every one of his motions to dismiss so far has been denied. (I predict that if John moves to strike as untimely the motion to dismiss filed with the answer, Hecker will deny the motion to strike and then deny the motion to dismiss and tell Willie that excuse time is over.)

    Third, it is clear that the judge’s attitude toward the excuse of being a pro se litigant is that if the rule is somewhat convoluted, he will not be strict, but he expects pro se litigants to make good faith efforts to comply with the rules. He was entirely unsympathetic to Kimberlin’s moaning about being a pro se.

    Fourth, what Willie wanted was to be released from the case because of his horrible, horrible medical condition. He lost that argument, and John won it. Witless can yap all he wants about his “victory,” but I doubt anyone sincerely believes that having to defend this case in Maryland represents anything but a total defeat for Willie.


    • Bill was technically in default, absolutely, and according to JeffM’s reporting of events the judge acknowledged Bill was in default. Bill knows this to be true but he so badly wants a win he’ll pretend a judge granting “grace” to a pro-se defendant and managing his docket quickly and efficiently was somehow a ruling on the merits. It wasn’t.

      Did the judge talk about your multiple motions to dismiss and whether you violated the rule purposely, Bill? Answer the question on twitter or elsewhere because that’s where any merit is to be found and you know it.

      But Bill with the articles and comments on this blog read by you (logins), tweets acknowledging the subject, and the recent court hearing, you won’t ever get to violate that rule again in the future. John took you to the wood house and spanked you like I child that might catch your eye (my suspicion after reading your comedy) because you’re now missing one of your tactical arrows of delay in your lawfare quiver.


      • “But Bill with the articles and comments on this blog read by you (logins), tweets acknowledging the subject, and the recent court hearing, you won’t ever get to violate that rule again in the future.

        I wouldn’t bet on that. Reason: Maryland.


      • That’s the problem.

        The judge’s reasoning was expressed very tersely. If I am remembering correctly, he expressly found only that Witless had not intended to waive any defenses and then took the technically improper motions under consideration, which implicitly made the answer due 15 days later and took away the basis for John’s request for default. What the judge did not do was to explain the Maryland rules to Witless. What Willie did not do was ask for any clarification of the rules. Nor did Witless ask for permission to file additional motions to dismiss. And of course Willie has been on notice now for months of the Maryland rule, yet did not file this motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action before the hearing.

        One option for John is to file a motion to strike. Another option is to include in John’s opposition to the new motion to dismiss the argument that the motion was not timely and so should be denied in addition to the other substantive arguments to deny. And the third option is to just oppose on substantive grounds.

        Based on my single observation of the judge, he does not like the pro se excuse, but will grant latitude when a pro se litigant might reasonably misunderstand a purely procedural rule. Because the judge can and will deny this motion on substantive grounds, he may ignore the procedural issue as moot. On the other hand, if John points out that Willie did not ask for clarification or permission, the judge may tell Witless to straighten up and fly right procedurally henceforward.

        That is a tough tactical choice for John because this judge seems to want to concentrate on the substance of the case, not procedure, but it is unfair to John to let Willie repeatedly flout the rules.

Leave a Reply