When did WJJ Hoge tell me to stop contacting him? NEVER!

Simple answer? Never.

I like to think of these little blog posts as being instructive.  Here’s an old investigative journalist trick.

You want information and you know your quarry has an ego the size of all outdoors.

1. Play stupid or forgetful. I tweeted this morning that I didn’t recall Hoge having ever asked me to stop contacting him. I’m sure he did, but darned if I can find it anywhere in my records.”

2. Show a vulnerability. I am sure he sent me one, but my memory isn’t what it has been lately.

Then, sit back and wait until you hear the trap snap shut.  First, the blog post in its entirety, after which we will break it down and demonstrate why, if he has any hopes of not being humiliated on Oct. 16, he should pray that the Court of Appeals grants my motion, or that I die before Oct. 16. Barring that, he would need to talk to his attorney.

Screen Shot 2013-10-04 at 1.24.53 PMScreen Shot 2013-10-04 at 12.51.39 PMScreen Shot 2013-10-04 at 12.51.54 PMNow, let’s examine what we’ve learned here.

1. WJJ HOGE NEVER SENT ME A CEASE AND DESIST DEMAND. Oh, he sent one to Old Uncle Bastard. He also sent one to Breitbart Unmasked and Occupy Rebellion who continue to contact him to their hearts’ delight. I am the only one to have charges filed against me. But my name is NOT “Old Uncle Bastard.” A proper “cease and desist” has to be addressed to the individual you wish to stop contacting you.

Screen Shot 2013-10-04 at 1.38.45 PMWilliam M. Schmalfeldt never received a signed, cease and desist order from WJJ Hoge. “Old Uncle Bastard” got a “cease contact” Tweet. As far as we legally know, Hoge’s son sent it. There is no proof that would stand up in court that Hoge ever ordered that I, William M. Schmalfeldt, cease contact with him.

2. HOGE’S “SECOND WARNING” WAS ACTUALLY A “FIRST WARNING” AND HE FILED CHARGES JUST DAYS LATER. In his blog post, Hoge refers to his Feb. 15 “stop contacting me” post as a “second warning.” He links to what he says was his “first warning,” which was this…

cease-tweet

IN WHAT UNIVERSE IS “save your breath” a demand to “cease contact?”

Screen Shot 2013-10-04 at 1.45.41 PM

“Old Uncle Bastard” isn’t even MENTIONED in this post so how can the OTHER post be a “second warning?”  And do you see any reference to William M. Schmalfeldt anywhere in this post?  Me neither.

3. HOGE’S SCREENCAP OF “OLD UNCLE BASTARD’S” TWEET DOESN’T PROVE A THING: For one thing, the link he says proves “Old Uncle Bastard” was AWARE of the Cease Contact Demand goes NOWHERE! And the comment made in the tweet could be true of the comments in 95% of Hoge’s posts. In the Tweet do you see any reference to a “Cease Contact Demand?” Me neither.

4. DID “OLD UNCLE BASTARD” CONTINUE TO SEND MESSAGES THAT HARASSED, ALARMED OR SERIOUSLY ANNOYED MR. HOGE?  It doesn’t seem that way.  But again, let’s look at the legal definition of Harassment in Maryland.

Screen Shot 2013-10-04 at 1.52.02 PMDid Old Uncle Bastard “intend” to “harass, alarm or annoy” Mr. Hoge? Well, a Carroll County Circuit Court judge who didn’t even know what Twitter WAS says William M. Schmalfeldt did, but did Hoge ever tell William M. Schmalfeldt to leave him alone?  And is Mr. Hoge aware of the fact that criminal complaints are signed “under penalty of perjury”?

Screen Shot 2013-10-04 at 11.17.55 AM

A “malicious course of conduct” in which William M. Schmalfeldt “approached or pursued” Mr. Hoge with INTENT to place him in “REASONABLE FEAR OF SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OR DEATH?”

SERIOUSLY???  POOP FLAKES IN YOUR BEARD WILL KILL YOU?  Did William M. Schmalfeldt THREATEN to put those poop flakes in Mr. Hoge’s beard, or was it a vulgar but satirical observation?

5. MR. HOGE SEES MY BAIT AS AN ATTEMPT TO CLAIM A “TWINKIE DEFENSE.” Nope. It’s an attempt to prove that he never told William M. Schmalfeldt to stop contacting him, he told “Old Uncle Bastard,” “Breitbart Unmasked” and “Occupy Rebellion” to stop contacting him after lying that it was a “second warning.”

On Oct. 16, if we get that far, this is a tiny, smidgen of the evidence I plan to present to discredit and impeach Hoge’s honesty. I will use every scrap of proof I have gathered, and will continue to gather, to prove that Mr. Hoge’s “peace order” is nothing more than an attempt to use the courts as a weapon against me for the crime of pointing out the very obvious fact that he has poop flakes in his beard.

Of course, if Mr. Hoge would rather NOT be humiliated in a public setting, he knows what he has to do.  But we have the feeling that Mr. Hoge rather enjoys public humiliation, given the fact that his 13 charges against me have all gone into the dumper and he needed three shots to get a judge to agree with his constitutionally-flawed peace order.  If humiliation is what he craves, I will do my level best to deliver.

WJJ Hoge: The man who was a journalist until he wasn’t, until I joined the SPJ at which time he was again

Far be it from me to cast aspersions on a fellow journalist.

(Pardon me. Had to pause for a moment. My wife made some tasty scrambled eggs and ham for lunch and some of it just shot through my nose and got on the computer screen. Had to wipe it off. Let’s continue.)

After being hired day before yesterday by the website Digital Journal as an independent contractor, freelance journalist

Screen Shot 2013-09-27 at 11.45.05 AMI decided it was about time that I joined the Society of Professional Journalists. Before filling out the application, I contacted the SPJ and asked if I was eligible to join as a retired member, even though I am not yet 62. I explained my circumstances, how I had been forced to retire by Parkinson’s disease but was staying active as a journalist as much as possible by my freelance work.  They wrote back and granted me an exemption to the age requirement. So, I joined as a retired member.

It means nothing, really. But it is nice to belong to an organization of fellow journalists. One of the requirements for joining, either as active or retired, is:

You spend more than half your time working as a journalist or j-educator.

I spend nearly every waking hour here at the keyboard, either updating my Shoutcast News/Talk station, or writing stories for Digital Journal (which pays me for doing so.)

I was proud of landing this gig, especially since Aaron Walker, Ali Akbar, WJJ Hoge, R. Stacy McCain and their legion of trolls attacked the Examiner for hiring me back and caused them to rescind their invitation to write for them.

Well, slow and steady wins the race. I won this one.

Now, imagine my surprise to read yesterday that WJJ Hoge — a retired engineer of low accomplishment — is ALSO a member of the SPJ. He posted his online status.  Tell me what you notice here.

spj_member

Notice it? The “join date” is redacted. Why would the “join date” be redacted? You would think that if Hoge wanted to rub it my face about being a long-standing member of this organization, he would SHOW the “join date” to prove he was member in good standing. After all, he referred to the SPJ website as our website.”

Screen Shot 2013-09-27 at 11.56.45 AM(See, if Hoge mentions something as a matter of conversation or a point of information, that’s all it is. If I do the same, I am “bragging.”)

But this redacted “join date” stuck out like a sore thumb.  Could it be that WJJ Hoge “joined” the SPJ the same day I did? Could it be this was another attempt of Hoge’s to get me to violate the terms of his weak and unconstitutionally-granted peace order, to goad me into contacting him?

I just can’t make myself believe that he would drop $37.50 just to needle me. But then again, he has spent untold thousands of dollars in his 13 failed criminal charges against me and his defense against my motion and petition in the Maryland Court of Appeals isn’t free either. Zoa Barnes GOTTA git paid for her lies. (I don’t have Parkinson’s disease anymore because Zoa said so.)

But would someone actually be that sick, that twisted, that SLIMY as to join an organization he has no business joining in a vain attempt to get under my skin? Is Hoge a “journalist”?

It depends on which Hoge you believe.  The Hoge who posted this in February:

Screen Shot 2013-09-27 at 11.33.18 AMOr the Hoge who posted this yesterday?

Screen Shot 2013-09-27 at 11.36.55 AMSeems like the befuddled old fool can’t make up his mind.

Whatever.  We will meet in court on October 16 for my motion at the Carroll County Circuit Court to modify the peace order. Mr. Hoge will be under oath and we’ll ask him to tell the court when and why he joined the SPC, and if — in fact — the claimed victim of stalking has turned into the stalker.

A Closer Look at My Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Maryland Court of Appeals and Zoa Barnes’ Quarter-Assed Reply

"Because you SAY so? Really? You're gonna STICK with that, Ms. Barnes?"

“Because you SAY so? Really? You’re gonna STICK with that, Ms. Barnes?”

Moving on to my petition for a writ of certiorari with the Maryland Court of Appeals, our version of a “Supreme Court.”

My brief lays out what I think is a very carefully researched, documented, case law-cited reason for the CofA to take the appeal under consideration.

My copy of the Answer filed by Zoa Barnes, the Westminster, Md., Family Law and Education lawyer that WJJ Hoge III retained (for some reason) to defend his, IMHO, unconstitutionally-granted peace order seems like a quarter-assed, “well, I have to file a response, so here goes” sort of reply.

In my brief, five questions are raised.  I will ask them one at a time, give you the rationale behind how I want the Court to answer the question, then I will give you Barnes’ reply.

QUESTION 1: WHETHER A PEACE ORDER PROHIBITING A JOURNALIST FROM USING TWITTER TO INFORM CITIZENS ABOUT A PUBLIC FIGURE CONFLICTS WITH AND VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.

I argue that it does conflict with and violate my First Amendment right to free speech. Since receiving his Peace Order, Hoge has repeatedly threatened me with arrest, imprisonment and more criminal charges if I inadvertently or intentionally use the @wjjhoge “at mention” in a Twitter comment about him, in a direct tweet, a reply to someone else’s tweet that already contains the @wjjhoge mention, or otherwise.  I point to several examples of how the First Amendment bars efforts to criminalize free speech. I cite the case of Texas v. Johnson and Republican Party of Minn. v. White, two Supreme Court cases. In Texas v. Johnson, SCOTUS decided that conduct FAR more egregious than my tweets to Hoge — the burning of an American flag — was protected by the First Amendment. In Republican Party of Minn. v. White, SCOTUS decided that a Minnesota rule saying candidates for judicial office could not discuss their views on disputed legal issues was unconstitutional.  I argued that the content of my tweets was protected by the First Amendment, citing Hustler v. Falwell, in which SCOTUS decided that the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them. I cited New York Times v. Sullivan, in which SCOTUS established the “actual malice” standard, which requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person’s head, such cases—when they involve public figures—rarely prevail. I cited Boos v. Barry, in which SCOTUS stood by its longstanding refusal to punish speech because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience. I cited Ashcroft v. the Free Speech Coalition, in which SCOTUS struck down two overbroad provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 because they abridged “the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech.” Finally, I brought out the big gun and cited US v. Cassidy, in which a Federal District Judge ruled that “tweets” and “blogs” by their very nature can not be sources of “harassment” or cause “extreme emotional distress.”

Now, I don’t want anyone to think I am paraphrasing Zoa Barnes’ answer to any of these questions. So I will copy and paste her actual reply to the very complicated, well-cited question posed above.  This is from her actual answer that I got in the mail yesterday, that the CofA will receive Monday,

Screen Shot 2013-09-22 at 9.49.20 AMThat’s it. That’s the answer. No case law. No reason given. No citations. No proof. Not even a rebuttal about the applicability of any of the cited SCOTUS or Federal District Court cases.

Just “Because I Said So.”

QUESTION 2: WHETHER THE PEACE ORDER IN THIS CASE CONFLICTS WITH THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE PEACE ORDER STATUTE BY PROHIBITING ONLINE CONTACT.

I argued that the Peace Order statute lists a series of nine acts that justify the issuance of a peace order. Bodily harm, fear of bodily harm, assault, rape, stalking, false imprisonment, harassment, trespass and malicious destruction of property. I have been charged with harassment. All charges have been dropped. I have never been convicted of harassment. And nowhere in the Peace Order statute is there a mention of online communication as being a source of harassment. In fact, I take you back to US. v. Cassidy which says Tweets can NOT be considered harassment.  However, the Carroll County Circuit Court decided, on appeal from Hoge, that despite the lack of a conviction, despite the settled law of US v. Cassidy, that tweets DO constitute harassment, and issued the peace order. Since the legislature did not see fit to include electronic communication as “harassment” in the Peace Order statute, the CCCC erred in expanding the peace order statute to INCLUDE electronic communication.

Once again, Ms. Barnes responds.

Screen Shot 2013-09-22 at 9.56.22 AMThat’s it. That’s her answer to the argument. “It does, because I say it does.”

QUESTION 3: WHETHER THE WORK OF A JOURNALIST FALLS UNDER THE “PEACEABLE ACTIVITY” AND “LEGAL PURPOSE” EXCEPTIONS OF THE PEACE ORDER STATUTE.

I argued that since I am a freelance journalist, even though I officially retired due to Parkinson’s disease, I can still call myself a journalist according to “The News Manual: A professional resource for journalists and the media.”

Screen Shot 2013-09-22 at 9.59.54 AMI argue in my supplement that the “peaceable activity” and “legal purpose” and “intended to express a political view or provide information to others” carveouts in the two state harassment laws are met.  And they are met WHETHER OR NOT I am a journalist. But in asking uncomfortable questions, as a journalist, I am engaging in my first amendment right to free expression — a “legal purpose.” If the subject of my questioning on Twitter doesn’t like the questions, they can ignore me, block me, tell me to piss up a rope, or any combination thereof.

Zoa’s answer? In it’s entirety?

Screen Shot 2013-09-22 at 10.06.24 AMSo, it is Zoa Barnes who decides who is or is not a journalist. Not the above mentioned reference and dozens of others. ZOA says I am not a journalist, therefore I am NOT a journalist. How can the CofA argue with THAT logic? No citations. Nothing to prove against the overwhelming evidence that I am and have been a journalist in some form or another for over 30 years. Just like she did with my Parkinson’s disease in her answer to my motion to reconsider the CofA’s denial of my motion to stay the peace order pending appeal, Zoa Barnes has ERASED 30-plus years of history. Astounding.

QUESTION 4: WHETHER A PEACE ORDER PROHIBITING A JOURNALIST FROM CONTACTING THE SUBJECT OF A STORY CONFLICTS WITH THE RULES OF ETHICS PERTAINING TO JOURNALISTS.

The Society for Professional Journalists has an official code of ethics.

There are a lot of them. Here’s the second one listed.

Screen Shot 2013-09-22 at 10.11.53 AMNow, how does a journalist — encumbered by a peace order, “diligently seek out subject of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrong doing” when the subject of a news story can PUT YOUR ASS IN JAIL FOR ATTEMPTING TO CONTACT HIM?  Imagine this scenario.

“Woodward? Bernstein? Just got a call from Nixon. He says you are harassing him, so he’s slapped you with a peace order. If you contact him about Watergate OR ANYTHING ELSE, FOR ANY REASON, he can put you in jail. Got it?”

Well, not THAT’S a frightening scenario, is it not? Journalists being forbidden from contacting news sources under threat of arrest? I think so, too!

Zoa says it’s irrelevant.

Screen Shot 2013-09-22 at 10.15.12 AMThat’s it. There’s her answer to the question. It’s irrelevant. The right of a reporter to legally contact a source, in accordance with the rules of ethics of the Society for Professional Journalists. Irrelevant. Wow.

QUESTION 5: WHETHER THE PEACE ORDER ISSUED BY A STATE CIRCUIT JUDGE AGAINST A DISABLED PERSON UNDER THE THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT CONFLICTS WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.

I argue in my petition that it does so by limiting my ability to engage in my employment, limited as it is. My neurologist and any competent Parkinson’s doctor will tell you that keeping a Parky’s mind engaged and working is therapeutic. I have the right, under the ADA, to engage in my employment up to the level of my ability to do so and the government is required to accommodate my disability. I’m not seeking any special accommodations. But the Peace Order does exactly the OPPOSITE by restricting and limiting my ability to work, to engage in my employment, to supplement my meager retirement income with freelance work if the subject of a story can slap a peace order on me preventing me from doing what the Code of Ethics DEMANDS of me.

No biggie, Zoa says.

Screen Shot 2013-09-22 at 10.20.44 AMBecause… say it with me… SHE SAYS SO!

Now, to be absolutely fair, she does take a whole page to argue her case for her sniffing dismissal of my questions.

Screen Shot 2013-09-21 at 6.17.27 PMAnd the final insult comes on the signature page.

Screen Shot 2013-09-21 at 6.24.46 PMA friend of mine lobbied real hard for me to make another filing, an affidavit perhaps, proving that I am and have been a journalist. But I declined. The CofA has all the info it needs to make a decision. And at any rate, I don’t expect a decision on the petition for a writ for awhile.  They don’t seem to have a “set in concrete” standard for when they consider petitions, but a check of their website shows they tend to accept petitions on the third Thursday or Friday of the month, and reject petitions the following Monday.  There are instances where a single petition is granted on a single day that is not the third Thursday of the month. But I don’t expect that will happen here. I would think the earliest they will decide on my petition for cert would be Oct. 18.

And despite Hoge’s contention that the CofA will almost CERTAINLY call for briefs (and for his sake, he’d better hope he’s wrong because Zoa won’t do that for free), there is a much broader list of what the CofA could do when and if they accept the petition.

According to Maryland Rule 8-303(f)

If the petition is granted, the Court shall:

(1)  direct further proceedings in the Court of Appeals;

(2)  dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 8-602;

(3)  affirm the judgment of the lower court;

(4)  vacate or reverse the judgment of the lower court;

(5)  modify the judgment of the lower court;

(6)  remand the action to the lower court for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 8-604 (d); or

(7)  an appropriate combination of the above.

Personally? I hope they DO direct further proceedings. I would LOVE to get a hotshot free speech attorney interested in this case and watch him go up against Family Law and Education Attorney Zoa Barnes in front of the Court of Appeals.  But I suppose it’s just as likely that, if they grant my petition, they could go with what they’ve got already and vacate or reverse the Circuit Court decision re: the Peace Order, send it back to the CC to look at it again (unlikely since the CC has already set a date to consider modifying the PO).

You never know what a court is going to do until they do it.  I believe this next week will be very telling. If they deny my motion to reconsider their denial of my motion to stay the peace order pending appeal, I will see that as a setback but not a fatal one. If they deny cert? Oh well. We go on as before, Hoge continues to harass and goad me, and I just have to take it.

We shall see.

The Wheels of Justice Turn Slowly, but Grind Exceedingly Fine

scales-of-justice-gavel_4

Now that everything is done but the deciding, let’s take a look at the nuts and bolts of what the Maryland Court of Appeals has on its plate in the case of Schmalfeldt v. Hoge.

On Friday, Sept. 20, the clerk told me that the Court already has their hands on my motion to reconsider their decision to deny my motion to stay the peace order pending appeal, as well as my supplement to the petition for a writ of certiorari (asking them to consider my case).

It seems likely that we’ll get a quick ruling on that, so let’s review the issues presented in that motion.

In my initial motion to stay the PO, filed Aug. 27, I argued that I am a journalist, although officially retired with advanced Parkinson’s disease. But I still take on the occasional freelance assignment. I argued that up until the peace order, my sole contact with Hoge was via Twitter, and that since the peace order was issued, Hoge continues to write about me, to taunt me, in my opinion, to goad me into violating the very broad terms of the PO that he believes to be in effect. I argued that Hoge had filed 8 new charges against me since the granting of his PO, all of which were eventually dismissed by the Carroll County State’s Attorney’s office. I argued that the PO has a chilling effect on my first amendment rights to write stories about Mr. Hoge’s involvement with a right wing hate group, since the code of journalistic ethics requires that I attempt to make contact with the subject of my story to get his side, his comment, and now I was legally — albeit in my opinion, unconstitutionally — forbidden to contact him.  The peace order ignores the part of the state’s harassment statute that says it does not apply to “peaceable conduct” done with the purpose of “expressing a political view or providing information to others. I brought up the Federal District Court‘s decision in US v. Cassidy which stated that “Tweets and blogs” can not be considered harassing conduct.

In her motion to dismiss my motion, Zoa Barnes of Westminster, Md., a family law attorney Hoge — for some reason — chose to represent him in this case, she makes several material misstatements of fact. Out of the box, she claims that I had filed an appeal with the Carroll County Circuit Court to modify the peace order. She even notes that the appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeals on August 9.  She notes that my motion to the CCCC was filed on July 11, a month before the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals.  Then she says that the CCCC would need to hear my request to modify the PO before the CofA could act on my motion to stay. She said that, instead of filing a motion to stay with the CofA, which she admits the appeal had been transferred to as of Aug. 9, that I would have to ask the CCCC for a motion to stay first. Of course, I did ask the CCCC for a modification of the PO on July 11, so she steps on her own argument.  She outright lies (in an artful, legal fashion) by saying the CCCC was “already considering” my motion — not true since the CCCC isn’t scheduled to even hear the motion until Oct. 16.

The CofA received her motion the same day I got my copy, and denied my motion believing that the case was “already being considered.”

Now, at this point I figure, well, that’s that. Let’s see what the CofA does with my petition for a writ of certiorari. But on Sept. 9, I received a very nice letter from the Clerk of the Court of Appeals saying that if I wanted to ask the court to reconsider their denial of the motion, they would entertain that reconsideration. She also suggested that the court may wish to expedite my petition for a writ of certiorari if I got my supplement to them sooner rather than later.

So, I filed a motion for the CofA to reconsider their denial.  In the motion, the first thing I mentioned is that the CCCC is NOT “already considering” my motion to modify since they don’t even hear the case until Oct. 16.  During that time between now and then, I remain under daily threat of criminal prosecution. Hoge had stopped waiting for actual accidental slipups and had started CREATING reasons why I had violated his precious PO.  I reminded the CofA that 8 charges had been filed and dismissed since the PO, but the threat for more remained, including a note from the Carroll County SA telling me to mind my P’s and Q’s if I didn’t want to end up in the dock!  This “sword of Damocles” would dangle by the merest thread for as long as the PO remained intact.  I explained again how Twitter works, and how Hoge could block me any time he wants to and how he attempted to FOLLOW my Twitter timeline after getting his PO. I explained how Hoge was already threatening more criminal charges once all the dust had settled from the appeals. I explained how this was detrimental to my Parkinson’s disease symptoms, not only the physical having to be dragged to and from Carroll County, but the emotional stress of having a constant threat of prosecution dangling over my head and how stress causes PD to worsen at a more rapid rate. I reminded the CofA that since it had taken charge of the appeal, that it was silly to expect that I would file a similar appeal with the CCCC.

Zoa Barnes’ answer was brief, succinct, and full of misstatments.

1. She denied that Twitter works the way that Twitter says it works.

2. She denied that attempting to contact Hoge via Twitter was “peaceable” and “for a legal purpose.”

3. She ADMITTED that, oh yeah! Hoge is gonna bust my chops any time he feels like it once these matters are settled.

4. SHE DENIED THAT I SUFFER FROM ADVANCED PARKINSON’S DISEASE, which will come as quite a shock to my neurologist, the Social Security Administration, the Office of Personnel Management and my wife.

5. SHE DENIED THE MEDICAL SCIENCE THAT SAYS STRESS INCREASES THE RATE OF NEURAL DEGENERATION IN PARKINSON’S DISEASE!!!

6. And, again, she said that even though the case had been transferred to the CofA, I needed to file an appeal, which I already had, to the CCCC before the CofA could entertain my appeal.

Again, the Clerk told me that the CofA would receive her answers to my motion and to my petition on Monday.  I expect a very quick turnaround on the motion to stay the PO pending appeal.  No official predictions, but I like my chances. I would expect that by this time next week we’ll know whether or not the Court of Appeals agrees that the Peace Order is an unjust infringement on my rights, or if it’s OK that Hoge is using the courts like his own personal spanking paddle.

But the CofA moves on its own schedule regarding petitions for writs of certiorari, which I will discuss in my next entry.

 

PRAISE JESUS! I’M CURED OF PARKINSON’S DISEASE!!!

sunrise

PRAISE THE HOLY LORD JESUS CHRIST IN HEAVEN ABOVE! I HAVE BEEN HEALED OF MY 14-YEAR PLAGUE OF PARKINSON’S DISEASE!

And all it took was the touch of the holy hand of Zoa Barnes, on behalf of WJJ Hoge III.

I received my copy of her answer to my motion for the Maryland Court of Appeals to reconsider their decision to deny my motion to stay the peace order (puff!) and IMAGINE MY SURPRISE when I read the brief and LEARNED THE GOD’S HONEST TRUTH that I do NOT have PARKINSON’S DISEASE!!!

PRAISE JEEEEEZUS!!!

Here’s how I know I’m healed! Just a few simple words did the trick!

“That he denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Motion…”

HERE ARE THE ALLEGATIONS OF PARAGRAPH 8 OF MY MOTION!

“Petitioner (that’s ME!) suffers from advanced Parkinson’s disease, has a full time caregiver, and is required to have a very strict regimen of daily medications. Petitioner cannot walk with out a walker and has to be driven any time he leaves his home in Elkridge, Maryland.  Any trips to the courthouse in Carroll County require a profound amount of arrangement and effort.”

Except IT’S NOT TRUE! Not a WORD of it! HOGE’S LAWYER SAYS SO! I do NOT have advanced Parkinson’s disease. I do NOT have a full time caregiver (my wife can’t get a job because I need her here for reasons I very colorfully outlined the other day. I fall. I bleed.) I DON’T need a walker! I can DRIVE MYSELF ANY TIME I WANT TO, even though I gave up my drivers license in 2009. Getting to the courthouse in Carroll County is a SNAP, even though my wife is not comfortable driving that distance, and requires NO arrangement or effort!

And what’s MORE?

If I HAD Parkinson’s disease, death threats, taunts, promises of years in prison do NOT make it worse!

“That he denies the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Motion.”

And WHAT are the “allegations in Paragraph 9 of my motion?

The stress of threats of criminal prosecution along with the repeated online taunts by Respondent (Hoge) that Petitioner (Me again) would be going to prison for violating the Peace Order are very harmful to Petitioner’s health, which worsens with stress and worry.”

FORGET the standard literature on Parkinson’s disease and stress.

According to a new Northwestern Medicine study published Nov. 10 in the journal Nature, dopamine-releasing neurons in a region of the brain called the substantia nigra lead a lifestyle that requires lots of energy, creating stress that could lead to the neurons’ premature death. Their death causes Parkinson’s disease.

FUHGEDDABOUDIT!!! ST. ZOA BARNES, along with her Acolyte Hoge have TOUCHED me and CURED me and stress can’t HARM Parkinson’s disease when you don’t even HAVE it!!!

So, Hoge can retweet shit like THIS to me ALL DAY LONG!!!

Screen Shot 2013-09-20 at 2.09.27 PMAND IT WON’T BOTHER ME!!!

Isn’t that GREAT NEWS!!!

I think I’ll go fucking JOGGING!!!