This petition to Maryland's highest court was filed after the Maryland Court of Special Appeals wrongly affirmed numerous actions of the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals again ignored clear law and affirmed the lower court's actions which clearly contravened the law. The issues involved settled law, are simple, and were clearly articulated and supported, both in the lower court and in the briefs before the Court of Special Appeals. Maryland law clearly does not allow a court to use it's contempt powers to enforce an agreement between two parties that involves issues the court itself could not impose absent an agreement between the parties. Second, decades of settled law require a newly found "contemnor" be allowed to demonstrate an inability to meet the purge set by the court. The record proves Judge Paul F. Harris did not ensure the purge could be met (Judge Harris acknowledged expenses that almost doubled the income he attributed to the defendant, as well as directly refused to accept financial documents proving an inability to comply with the purge just set). Third, by any measure, Judge Harris exceeded the criteria for recusal as set forth in Maryland statutes and as outlined in numerous United States Supreme Court cases.
The tone of this petition for certiorari is intentionally aggressive. The Maryland Court of Appeals had already turned a blind eye to the egregious, and demonstrably incorrect opinion in the first appeal in this case (the lower court had presided over a case that both parties had declared, in writing, to be moot, and which was proven to be moot the morning of the trial.) Declaring it was "not in the public interest" to review the opinion, the Maryland Court of Appeals allowed a citizen to be hauled before a court acting without jurisdiction. A judicial system that gives itself authority, contrary to the laws set down by the legislature, becomes tyrannical. Nothing could be more important to the public interest than to ensure a citizen is not wrongly hauled before a court when that court has no authority to act.
The only reason for the Maryland Court of Appeals to deny certiorari when the evidence clearly shows a lower court acting contrary to law and an intermediate appellate court wrongly affirming such actions is because reviewing and correcting such egregious errors would highlight how incompetent, or corrupt, the courts have become.
What the Maryland Court of Appeals should understand is their duty to uphold the law and correct the errors of the lower courts, whether those errors are made in good faith or not, is far more critical to retain the trust in, and obedience to, the judicial system, and in a functioning society, than admitting the lower courts could be so far off-track.
This petition to Maryland's highest court was filed after the Maryland Court of Special Appeals wrongly affirmed numerous actions of the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals again ignored clear law and affirmed the lower court's actions which clearly contravened the law. The issues involved settled law, are simple, and were clearly articulated and supported, both in the lower court and in the briefs before the Court of Special Appeals. Maryland law clearly does not allow a court to use it's contempt powers to enforce an agreement between two parties that involves issues the court itself could not impose absent an agreement between the parties. Second, decades of settled law require a newly found "contemnor" be allowed to demonstrate an inability to meet the purge set by the court. The record proves Judge Paul F. Harris did not ensure the purge could be met (Judge Harris acknowledged expenses that almost doubled the income he attributed to the defendant, as well as directly refused to accept financial documents proving an inability to comply with the purge just set). Third, by any measure, Judge Harris exceeded the criteria for recusal as set forth in Maryland statutes and as outlined in numerous United States Supreme Court cases.
The tone of this petition for certiorari is intentionally aggressive. The Maryland Court of Appeals had already turned a blind eye to the egregious, and demonstrably incorrect opinion in the first appeal in this case (the lower court had presided over a case that both parties had declared, in writing, to be moot, and which was proven to be moot the morning of the trial.) Declaring it was "not in the public interest" to review the opinion, the Maryland Court of Appeals allowed a citizen to be hauled before a court acting without jurisdiction. A judicial system that gives itself authority, contrary to the laws set down by the legislature, becomes tyrannical. Nothing could be more important to the public interest than to ensure a citizen is not wrongly hauled before a court when that court has no authority to act.
The only reason for the Maryland Court of Appeals to deny certiorari when the evidence clearly shows a lower court acting contrary to law and an intermediate appellate court wrongly affirming such actions is because reviewing and correcting such egregious errors would highlight how incompetent, or corrupt, the courts have become.
What the Maryland Court of Appeals should understand is their duty to uphold the law and correct the errors of the lower courts, whether those errors are made in good faith or not, is far more critical to retain the trust in, and obedience to, the judicial system, and in a functioning society, than admitting the lower courts could be so far off-track.
This petition to Maryland's highest court was filed after the Maryland Court of Special Appeals wrongly affirmed numerous actions of the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals again ignored clear law and affirmed the lower court's actions which clearly contravened the law. The issues involved settled law, are simple, and were clearly articulated and supported, both in the lower court and in the briefs before the Court of Special Appeals. Maryland law clearly does not allow a court to use it's contempt powers to enforce an agreement between two parties that involves issues the court itself could not impose absent an agreement between the parties. Second, decades of settled law require a newly found "contemnor" be allowed to demonstrate an inability to meet the purge set by the court. The record proves Judge Paul F. Harris did not ensure the purge could be met (Judge Harris acknowledged expenses that almost doubled the income he attributed to the defendant, as well as directly refused to accept financial documents proving an inability to comply with the purge just set). Third, by any measure, Judge Harris exceeded the criteria for recusal as set forth in Maryland statutes and as outlined in numerous United States Supreme Court cases.
The tone of this petition for certiorari is intentionally aggressive. The Maryland Court of Appeals had already turned a blind eye to the egregious, and demonstrably incorrect opinion in the first appeal in this case (the lower court had presided over a case that both parties had declared, in writing, to be moot, and which was proven to be moot the morning of the trial.) Declaring it was "not in the public interest" to review the opinion, the Maryland Court of Appeals allowed a citizen to be hauled before a court acting without jurisdiction. A judicial system that gives itself authority, contrary to the laws set down by the legislature, becomes tyrannical. Nothing could be more important to the public interest than to ensure a citizen is not wrongly hauled before a court when that court has no authority to act.
The only reason for the Maryland Court of Appeals to deny certiorari when the evidence clearly shows a lower court acting contrary to law and an intermediate appellate court wrongly affirming such actions is because reviewing and correcting such egregious errors would highlight how incompetent, or corrupt, the courts have become.
What the Maryland Court of Appeals should understand is their duty to uphold the law and correct the errors of the lower courts, whether those errors are made in good faith or not, is far more critical to retain the trust in, and obedience to, the judicial system, and in a functioning society, than admitting the lower courts could be so far off-track.